March 5, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:04 PM; it being noted that Councillor S. Hillier was 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 6th Report of Council in Closed Session, and Added Bill No. 96, by indicating that her spouse is employed by the Thames Valley District School Board.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

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

4.1 Solicitor-Client Privilege 

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; and, a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality or local board in connection with the property located at 39 Carfrae Street. (6.1/4/PEC)

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. (6.1/4/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. (6.2/4/CSC)

4.4 Solicitor-Client Privilege 

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose regarding the regulation of the display of graphic images. (6.1/4/CPSC)

4.5 Security of Property 

A matter pertaining to the security of the property of the municipality or local board. (6.1/1/AC)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

That Council convenes In Closed Session, from 1:23 PM to 2:16 PM.

4.1   Solicitor-Client Privilege

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

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

4.4   Solicitor-Client Privilege

4.5   Security of Property

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

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the Minutes of the 4th Meeting of the Municipal Council, held on February 13, 2024, and 5th Special Meeting of the Municipal Council held on February 29, 2024, respectively, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

5.1   4th Meeting held on February 13, 2024

2024-02-13 - Council Minutes

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by D. Ferreira

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

6.1    1494 Commissioners Road West (Z-9689)

  1. A. Drost        

  2. S. Rasanu, SBM Ltd.

6.2    Regulation of the Display of Graphic Images

  1. J. Schadenberg, Executive Director, 4LifeLondon        

  2. A. Freedom        

  3. I. Freedom        

  4. K. Dean, Co-Founder, Viewer Discretion Legislation Coalition        

  5. (ADDED) B. Couto        

  6. (ADDED) D. Ronson, Board Director, and J. Arthur Executive Director - Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada 

  7. (ADDED) M. Penney        

  8. (ADDED) D. Ronson        

  9. (ADDED) P. Seale        

  10. (ADDED) B. Alleyne, Eastern Strategic Initiatives Director - Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform        

  11. (ADDED) M. McCann

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.1   1494 Commissioners Road West (Z-9689)

6.1.1   A. Drost

2024-02-13 - Submission (PEC) - 1494 Commissioners Road West (Z-9689) - A. Drost

6.1.2   S. Rasanu, SBM Ltd.

2024-03-05 - Submission (PEC) - 1494 Commissioners Rd W (Z-9689) - S. Rasanu

6.2   Regulation of the Display of Graphic Images

6.2.1   J. Schadenberg, Executive Director, 4LifeLondon

2024-03-05 - Submission (CPSC) - Regulation of the Display of Graphic Images - J. Schadenberg

6.2.2   A. Freedom

2024-03-05 - Submission (CPSC) - Regulation of the Display of Graphic Images - A. Freedom

6.2.3   I. Freedom

2024-03-05 - Submission (CPSC) - Regulation of the Display of Graphic Images - I. Freedom

6.2.4   K. Dean, Co-Founder, Viewer Discretion Legislation Coalition

2024-03-05 - Submission (CPSC) - Regulation of the Display of Graphic Images - K. Dean

6.2.5   (ADDED) B. Couto

2024-03-05 - Submission (ADDED) (CPSC) - Regulation of the Display of Graphic Images - B. Couto

6.2.6   (ADDED) D. Ronson, Board Director, and J. Arthur Executive Director - Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada

2024-03-05 - Submission (ADDED) (CPSC) - Regulation of the Display of Graphic Images - D. Ronson - J. Arthur

6.2.7   (ADDED) M. Penney

2024-03-05 - Submission (ADDED) (CPSC) - Regulation of the Display of Graphic Images - M. Penney

6.2.8   (ADDED) D. Ronson

2024-03-05 - Submission (ADDED) (CPSC) - Regulation of the Display of Graphic Images - D. Ronson

6.2.9   (ADDED) P. Seale

2024-03-05 - Submission (ADDED) (CPSC) - Regulation of the Display of Graphic Images - P. Seale_Redacted

6.2.10   (ADDED) B. Alleyne, Eastern Strategic Initiatives Director - Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform

2024-03-05 - Submission (ADDED) (CPSC) - Regulation of the Display of Graphic Images - B. Alleyne

6.2.11   (ADDED) M. McCann

2024-03-05 - Submission (ADDED) (CPSC) - Regulation of the Display of Graphic Images - M. McCann

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   4th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2024-02-21 CWC Report

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 4th Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) 2023 Drinking Water Annual Report and Summary Report for the City of London Drinking Water System

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report, dated February 21, 2024, with respect to the 2023 Drinking Water Annual Report and Summary Report for the City of London Drinking Water System BE RECEIVED. (2024-E13)

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) 2023 Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Inspection of the City of London’s Drinking Water System

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report, dated February 21, 2024, with respect to the 2023 Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Inspection of the City of London Drinking Water System BE RECEIVED. (2024-E13)

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.3) Hamilton Road and Gore Road Intersection Improvements Environmental Assessment Project File Report

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 February 21, 2024, related to the Hamilton Road and Gore Road Intersection Improvements Environmental Assessment Project File Report:

a)    the Hamilton Road and Gore Road Intersection Improvements Environmental Assessment Study Project File Report BE ACCEPTED;

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

c)    the Project File Report BE PLACED on the public record for a 30-day review period. (2024-T06)

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.4) Orr Municipal Drain -Request for Drain Major Improvement and Appointment of Consulting Engineer

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 February 21, 2024, related to the Orr Municipal Drain and the Request for Drain Major Improvement and Appointment of Consulting Engineer:

a)    the request for a Major Improvement to the Orr Municipal Drain located in the area of Colonel Talbot Road and Southminster Bourne to benefit the drainage of 6526 Southminster Bourne, Township of Westminster, BE ACCEPTED by the Council of the Corporation of the City of London under Section 78 of the Drainage Act; and,

b)    Spriet Associates London Limited BE APPOINTED the Consulting Engineer under Section 8 of the Drainage Act. (2024-E09)

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.5) Single Source - Adelaide Wastewater Treatment Plant Section 1 Restoration Design and Contract Administration

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 February 21, 2024, related to a Single Source for the Adelaide Wastewater Treatment Plant Section 1 Restoration Design and Contract Administration:

a)    the contract for engineering design services BE AWARDED to CIMA Canada Inc., in the amount of $468,886.00 including contingency (excluding HST), as a single source award in accordance with Article 14.4.e of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

d)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project. (2024-E01)

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (2.6) RFP 18-34 Contract Amendment - Detailed Design for Highbury Avenue South Reconstruction

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 February 21, 2024, related to RFP 18-34 Contract Amendment for the Detailed Design for the Highbury Avenue South Reconstruction:

a)    the contract with Parsons Inc. BE INCREASED by $746,161.41 to a total agreement value of $1,567,367.91 (excluding HST) to complete additional detailed design activities for Highbury Avenue South Reconstruction including rehabilitation of the Bradley Avenue and Commissioners Road bridges, in accordance with Section 20.3 (e) of the City’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

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

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents including agreements, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-T05)

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (2.7) Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement for Municipal Energy Plan Funding for Detailed Cost-Benefit Analysis of Climate Emergency Action Plan Actions (Relates to Bill No. 76)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report, dated February 21, 2024, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on March 5, 2024, to:

a)    APPROVE the Transfer Payment Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and His Majesty the King in right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Energy, for the purpose of updating the energy mapping and financial models (i.e., cost-benefit analysis) in support of the Climate Emergency Action Plan;

b)    AUTHORIZE the Mayor and Clerk to execute the above-noted Agreement; and,

c)    AUTHORIZE the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, as the Duly Authorized Officer to approve reimbursement claims to be submitted to the Ontario Ministry of Energy to receive approved funding as identified in Schedule “E” of the above-noted Transfer Payment Agreement. (2024-E17)

Motion Passed

8.1.9   (2.8) Contract Amendment RFP 19-02 - Recycling Collection and Garbage and Yard Waste Collection in a Portion of London with Miller Waste Systems Inc.

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 February 21, 2024, related to Contract Amendment 19-02 for Recycling Collection and Garbage and Yard Waste Collection in a Portion of London with Miller Waste Systems Inc.:

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 8.5 (a)(ii) and Schedule A for collection of Green Bin materials;

b)    the price submitted by Miller Waste Systems Inc., to collect Green Bin materials in addition to recycling, garbage and yard waste for an annual cost of approximately $395,000, BE ACCEPTED, noting that the net annual contract price increase is approximately $231,000 when cost reduction associated with reduced frequency of garbage collection is included;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts that are necessary in connection with the contract referenced in a) above; 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. (2024-E07)

Motion Passed

8.1.10   (2.9) Exercise First Contract Renewal Option RFP 19-02 - Recycling, Garbage and Yard Waste Collection in a Portion of London with Miller Waste Systems Inc.

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 February 21, 2024, related to Exercise First Contract Renewal Option RFP 19-02 for Recycling, Garbage and Yard Waste Collection in a Portion of London with Miller Waste Systems Inc.:

a)    approval BE GIVEN to exercise the contract renewal provisions of section 20.2 of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy for the first-year renewal option of RFP 19-02 Recycling Collection, Garbage and Yard Waste Collection, as amended to include Green Bin, for a cost exceeding the threshold limits outlined in section 8.5 (a)(vi) and Schedule A of the policy noted above;

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts that are necessary in connection with the contract referenced above; 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. (2024-E07)

Motion Passed

8.1.11   (3.1) 3rd Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 3rd Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on February 7, 2024, BE RECEIVED; it being noted that a verbal delegation from B. Samuels, Chair, Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed

8.1.12   (3.2) Gold Seal and Fournie Municipal Drain Improvements (Relates to Bill No. 94)

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 February 21, 2024, related to the Gold Seal and Fournie Municipal Drain Improvements:

a)    the drainage report, as appended to the above-noted staff report, prepared by Spriet Associates London Ltd, Consulting Engineers for the construction of the Gold Seal and Fournie Municipal Drains (2023) BE ADOPTED, it being noted the notice of the public meeting was provided in accordance with the provisions of Section 78 of the Drainage Act; and,

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at this meeting, and BE GIVEN two readings at the March 5, 2024 Municipal Council meeting to authorize the reconstruction of the Gold Seal and Fournie Municipal Drain 2023 project; it being noted that the third reading and enactments of the by-law would occur after the holding of the Court of Revision in connection with the project;

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

  • H. and P. Johnson. (2024-E09)

Motion Passed

8.2   4th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2024-02-21 - PEC Report 4

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 4th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of item 8 (3.3).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

At 2:27 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor C. Rahman in the Chair.

At 2:29 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) 2023 Annual Heritage Report

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the staff report dated February 21, 2024, entitled “2023 Annual Heritage Report” BE RECEIVED for information.  (2024-R01)

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) 2023 Annual Development Report

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the staff report dated February 21, 2024, entitled “2023 Annual Development Report” BE RECEIVED for information. (2024-D04)

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.3) Amendments to the Downtown Community Improvement Plan Financial Incentive Program Guidelines to Introduce and Office-to Residential Conversion Grant Program (Relates to Bill No. 81)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Economic Services and Supports, with respect to updating the program guidelines for financial incentive programs permitted through the Downtown Community Improvement Plan, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 21, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 5, 2024, to amend By-law C.P.-1467-175, as amended, being “A by-law to establish financial incentives for the Downtown Community Improvement Project Areas”, by deleting Schedule “1” and replacing it with Schedule “1” the new Downtown Community Improvement Plan – Financial Incentive Program Guidelines;

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. (2024-F11A)

Motion Passed

8.2.5    (2.4) Heritage Easement Agreement for 39 Carfrae Street

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the proposed updated Schedule “C” and Schedule “D” for the Heritage Easement Agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Ontario Heritage Act for the property located at 39 Carfrae Street:

a)    the proposed updated Schedule “C” and Schedule “D” appended to the staff report dated February 21, 2024 for the Heritage Easement Agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Ontario Heritage Act for the property located at 39 Carfrae Street BE APPROVED; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to work with the applicant to address outstanding concerns with the remainder of the Heritage Easement Agreement and bring back an update by the end of June 2024;

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

  •    a request for delegation status from J. Gard; and,

  •    a communication dated February 14, 2024 from J. Gard;

it being further noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard a verbal presentation from J. Gard with respect to these matters;

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. (2024-R01)

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (3.1) 1160 Wharncliffe Road South and 234 Exeter Road (OZ-9450/39T-21507) (Relates to Bills No. 82, 83, and 91)

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 2793774 Ontario Inc. and Goldfield 1 Ltd., relating to the property located at 1160 Wharncliffe Road South and 234 Exeter Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 21, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 5, 2024, to AMEND the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by revising Map 1 – Place Types to change the designation of a portion of the subject lands FROM a Neighbourhoods Place Type TO a Green Space Place Type;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 21, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 5, 2024 to AMEND the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, forming part of the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by revising Schedule 4 and Schedule 10 of the Southwest Area Secondary Plan to change the designation of a portion of the subject lands FROM a Low Density Residential designation TO a Medium Density Residential designation and an Open Space and Environmental Review designations;

c)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 21, 2024 as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 5, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016) and the Southwest Area Secondary Plan as amended in parts a) and b) above, to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR6), an Environmental Review (ER) and a Holding Light Industrial (h-17LI2/LI7) Zone TO a Holding Residential R1 (hh-161R1-3) Zone, a Holding Residential R4 (hh100h161R4-4(2)), a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (hh-100h161R6-5(_)) Zone, and a Holding Residential R6 Special Provision (hh-2h-100h161*R6-5(_)) Zone and an Open Space (OS4) Zone;

d)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that no issues were raised at the public meeting with respect to the application for Plan of Subdivision for the property located at 1160 Wharncliffe Road South and 234 Exeter Road; and,

e)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed Plan of Subdivision as submitted by 2793774 Ontario Inc. and Goldfield 1 Ltd. (File No. 39T-21507), prepared by MHBC (Project No. 17334”j”), dated November 10, 2021;

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

  •    S. Allen, MHBC;

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

  •    the recommended Zoning By-law Amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020;

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

  •    the zoning will permit development that is considered appropriate and compatible with the existing and future land uses surrounding the subject lands;

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

  •    the proposed and recommended zoning amendments will facilitate an appropriate form of low and medium density residential development that conforms to The London Plan;

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. (2024-D14)

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (3.2) 475 Wharncliffe Road South (Z-9687) (Relates to Bill No. 92)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Michael Clark Construction (c/o Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.), relating to the property located at 475 Wharncliffe Road South, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 21, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 5, 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 Restrictive Service Commercial (RSC2/RSC4) Zone TO a Restrictive Service Commercial Special Provision (RSC2/RSC4(_)) Zone;

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

  •    J. Robertson, 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 policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions and Urban Corridor Place Type; and,

  •    the recommended amendment would facilitate the reuse of the existing building with a range of potential uses that is appropriate for the context of the site;

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. (2024-D14)

Motion Passed

8.2.9   (3.4) 1467 Wharncliffe Road South (OZ-9680) (Relates to Bills No. 84 and 93)

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 Nabataeans Homes, relating to the property located at 1467 Wharncliffe Road South:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 21, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to held on March 5, 2024, to amend the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP), for the City of London by CHANGING the designation of the subject lands FROM Commercial TO Medium Density Residential on Schedule 4 Southwest Area Land Use Plan, and Schedule 10 Central Longwoods Neighbourhood Land Use Designations;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 21, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 5, 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 (UR4) Zone TO a holding Residential R8 Special Provision (h-149*R8-4(_)) Zone;

it being noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with these matters;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, including but not limited to the Central Longwoods Neighbourhood policies; and,

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

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2024-D14)

Motion Passed

8.2.10   (3.5) Gloucester Deferred Trail Segment – Medway Valley Heritage Forest (South) Conservation Master Plan

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Gloucester Deferred Trail Segment of the Medway Valley Heritage Forest (South) Conservation Master Plan:

a)    the portion of the pathway and trail system from Gloucester Road (Access 12) to its connection with the pathway in the valley shown on “Appendix A” of the Medway Valley Heritage Environmentally Significant Area (South) Conservation Master Plan BE APPROVED as a Level 2 Trail;

b)    Parks and Forestry BE DIRECTED to consult on the need to establish public access through the City owned Green Acres Drive unopened highway road allowance through to Ambleside Park and report back to the appropriate Standing Committee; and,

c)    the Medway Valley Conservation Master Plan Gloucester Deferred Trail segment item BE REMOVED from the Planning and Environment Committee Deferred Matters list;

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

  •    a communication dated February 15, 2024, from J. Madden; and,

  •    a communication from J. Menard;

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

  •    G. Sinker;

  •    S. Pacifico;

  •    A. Vanstone; and,

  •    J. Madden;

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. (2024-R01)

Motion Passed

8.2.11   (5.1) 2nd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 2nd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on February 14, 2024 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.2.12   (5.2) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the Planning and Environment Committee Deferred Matters List dated February 20, 2024 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.2.8   (3.3) 1494 Commissioners Road West (Z-9689)

Motion made by S. Franke

That, based on the application by David Moubarak (c/o Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.), relating to the property located at 1494 Commissioners Road West, the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-8) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_)) Zone and Open Space (OS5) Zone BE REFUSED for the following reason:

i)    this application does not comply with the Environmental Management Guidelines;

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.;

  •    S. Mirsattari;

  •    R. Rybansky;

  •    V. Hopkins;

  •    M. Parezanovic;

  •    B. McDowell;

  •    M. Harnadek;

  •    J. Goldhawk;

  •    Victoria;

  •    Ghasaq;

  •    F. Fernandez;

  •    Emma;

  •    S. Comiskey; and,

  •    T. Heath;

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

  •    this application does not comply with the Environmental Management Guidelines; and,

  •    the requested Special Provision does not provide sufficient space within the interior side yard to accommodate adequate screening, protection from boundary trees and privacy to the abutting properties;

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. (2024-D14)

Motion Passed (8 to 7)

8.3   4th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2024-02-26 CSC Report 4

Motion made by H. McAlister

That the 4th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of item 4 (2.3).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by H. McAlister

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) Respectful Workplace Policy 2024 Update (Relates to Bill No. 80)

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports, and concurrence of the City Manager, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Respectful Workplace Policy 2024 Update Report from the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports BE RECEIVED;

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 26, 2024 as Appendix “A”, being a by-law to repeal Council Policy By-law CPOL.-396-7, being “Respectful Workplace Policy (Anti-Harassment/Anti-Discrimination)” and replace it with the updated Council Policy entitled “Respectful Workplace Policy (Anti-Harassment/Anti-Discrimination)”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 5, 2024; and

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review and update all policies and websites that refer to the Respectful Workplace Policy (Anti-Harassment/Anti-Discrimination).

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) SS-2024-072 Single Source Mobility Contract (Relates to Bill No. 77)

Motion made by H. McAlister

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports the following actions be taken, with respect to Mobile Devices and Services:

a)    approval hereby BE GIVEN to approve an extension to the Master Agreement Adoption Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (“Rogers”) to March 31, 2025; it being noted that the Master Agreement Adoption Agreement was a single source procurement approved pursuant to s. 14.4(g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services policy; 

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated February 26, 2024 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 5, 2024:

i)    the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports BE AUTHORIZED to approve an amending agreement to extend the Master Agreement Adoption Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Rogers from February 1, 2024 to July 31, 2024;

ii)    the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports BE AUTHORIZED to approve an amending agreement to extend the Master Agreement Adoption Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Rogers from August 1, 2024 to March 31, 2025, conditional on the Ontario Master Agreement between His Majesty the King in right of Ontario and Rogers being extended to March 31, 2025 or beyond March 31, 2025;

iii)    the Mayor and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the amending agreements to the Master Agreement Adoption Agreement;

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

d)    approval hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation negotiating the maintaining of satisfactory prices, terms and conditions with Rogers Canada Co. to the satisfaction of the Director, Information Technology Services; and

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

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (4.1) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - U.N. day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

Motion made by H. McAlister

That based on the application dated February 8, 2024 from the London & Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership, March 21, 2024 BE PROCLAIMED as U.N. Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (4.2) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - National Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Day

Motion made by H. McAlister

That based on the application dated January 22, 2024 from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters OFAH, September 21, 2024 BE PROCLAIMED as National Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Day.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.3) 2024 Tax Policy Expectations

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2024 Tax Policy Expectations:

a) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to include an individual line item on the 2024 City of London final property tax billing and their accompanying property tax pamphlet identifying the impact of legislative changes set out in the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget; and

b) on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the staff report dated February 26, 2024 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

At 3:03 PM, Councillor S. Franke leaves the meeting.

At 3:05 PM, Councillor S. Franke enters the meeting.

At 3:10 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen leaves the meeting.

At 3:13 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen enters the meeting.

At 3:29 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor C. Rahman in the Chair.

At 3:31 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

At 3:41 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor C. Rahman in the Chair.

At 3:45 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2024 Tax Policy Expectations:

a) that the direction to Civic Administration to include an individual line item on the 2024 City of London final property tax billing and their accompanying property tax pamphlet identifying the impact of legislative changes set out in the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE REFERRED to the March 25th meeting of the Corporate Services Committee for further consideration;

b) on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the staff report dated February 26, 2024 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Failed (3 to 12)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That Council recess at this time for 15 minutes.

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 3:47 PM and reconvenes at 4:04 PM.

8.4   4th Report of the Community and Protectives Services Committee

2024-02-20 CPSC Report - Full

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 4th Report of the Community and Protectives Services Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of item 4 (4.1)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) 2nd Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on February 1, 2024:

a)    any discussion of the coexistence strategies for Canada Geese and ducks BE FORWARDED to the Co-Existence with Geese Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee Sub-Committee for consideration; it being noted that P. Yeoman, Director, Parks and Forestry will provide an update in the spring, 2024;

b)    a representative from Corporate Communications BE INVITED to the March 6, 2024 Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee meeting to provide an outline of the proposed images for the bird friendly glass and light applications display for public education and awareness; and,

c)    clauses 1.1, 1.2, 3.1 and 5.3 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (3.1) Housekeeping Amendments - Yard and Lot Maintenance By-Law - Administrative Monetary Penalty Systems By-Law (Relates to Bills No. 78, 79, and 85)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated February 20, 2024, related to the Yard and Lot Maintenance By-law and Administrative Monetary Penalty System By-law:

a)    the revised attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 5, 2024, being “a By-law to require the owner or occupant of land to clean and clear the land, or to clear refuse from the land, not including buildings” to repeal and replace the City’s existing Yard and Lot Maintenance By-law No. P.W.-9;

b)    the revised attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 5, 2024, to amend By-law No. A-54, being “A by-law to implement an Administrative Monetary Penalty System in London” to increase the penalty amounts in Schedule A-4 pertaining to the Yard and Lot Maintenance By-law; and,

c)     the revised attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council Meeting to be held on March 5, 2024, to repeal Council Policy CPOL. -172-424, regarding Naturalized Areas and Wildflower Meadows. (2024-C01)

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (5.1) Rescheduling of Community and Protective Services Committee Meeting - April 8, 2024

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Community and Protective Services Committee meeting scheduled for April 8, 2024 at 1:00 PM BE RESCHEDULED to commence at 10:00 AM on April 8, 2024. (2024-C04)

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (4.1) Regulation of the Display of Graphic Images

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the staff report, dated February 20, 2024, BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration and the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a draft by-law with respect to the Regulation of the Display of Graphic Images to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee for consideration by the end of Q2 2024;

it being noted that the communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from J. Gunnarson, A. Polizogopoulos, A. Honner, M. McCann and J. Jeffs, with respect to this matter, were received. (2024-C01)

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

8.5   1st Report of the Audit Committee

2024-02-14 Audit Report 1

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 1st Report of the Audit Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.5.1   (1.1) Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That is BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (1.2) Election of Vice Chair for the term ending November 30, 2024

Motion made by E. Peloza

That Councillor S. Stevenson BE APPOINTED as Vice Chair for the term ending November 30, 2024.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (4.1) Briefing Note From Internal Audit - MNP

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the communication from MNP, with respect to the briefing note from the internal auditor, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (4.2) Internal Audit Follow Up Activities Dashboard - MNP

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the communication from MNP, with respect to the internal audit follow up activities update dashboard, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (4.3) Downtown Closed Circuit Television Program - KPMG

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the KPMG Report on Specified Auditing Procedures for the London Downtown Closed Circuit Television Program, for the year ending December 31, 2023, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (4.4) Audit Planning Report - KPMG

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the KPMG LLP Audit Planning Report, for the year ending December 31, 2023, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed

8.6   5th Special Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2024-03-04 CSC Report 5

Motion made by H. McAlister

That the 5th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of item 4 (2.3)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.6.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by H. McAlister

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.6.2   (2.1) Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act Report for Calendar Year 2023

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports the report regarding the Public Sector Salary Disclosures Act, 1996, Report for Calendar Year 2023 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.6.3   (2.2) 2023 Statement of Remuneration and Expenses for Elected and Appointed Officials

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports the following actions be taken:

a)    in accordance with Section 284 of the Municipal Act, 2001, the Statements of Remuneration and Expenses for Elected and Appointed Officials, as appointed to the staff report dated March 4, 2024 as Appendix “A” and Appendix “B”, BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    in accordance with City Council resolution of March 2012, the annual report on the Mayor’s Office’s expenditures BE RECEIVED for information; and

c)    in accordance with City Council Travel and Business Expenses Policy, the Statement of Travel Expenses for Senior Administration Officials, as appended to the staff report dated March 4, 2024 as Appendix “C” and “D”, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.6.4   (2.3) Government Relations Consulting Assignment

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, in accordance with section 15.1 (c) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, that Coriano Capital BE APPROVED to continue to provide consulting services for government relations, strategic advisory services, and advocacy in addressing local issues and advancing the city’s interests at the federal, provincial, and local levels for a further two (2) months, which will extend their initial engagement till July 15, 2024.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

8.7   6th Special Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2024-03-05 SPPC Report 6

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 6th Report of the Special Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of item 2 (2.1).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.7.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.7.2   (2.1) Contract Amendments to Maintain Day and Overnight Spaces for Unsheltered Londoners

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, that the following actions be taken with respect to the Contract Amendments to Maintain Day and Overnight Spaces for Unsheltered Londoners report:

a)    an extension to the existing Municipal Purchase of Service Agreement with London Cares at a total estimated increase of up to $139,600 (excluding HST) for the period of April 1, 2024, to May 31, 2024 BE APPROVED, to continue temporary drop-in space and security services, as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 20.3 e); 

b)    an extension to the existing Municipal Purchase of Service Agreement with Safe Space London at a total estimated increase of up to $129,000 (excluding HST) for the period of April 1, 2024, to May 31, 2024 BE APPROVED, to continue temporary day and overnight drop in space, as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 20.3 e); 

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in connection with the contracts noted in a) and b); and 

d)    approval given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation of the City of London amending existing Purchase of Service Agreements with agencies outlined in Schedule 1, as appended to the staff report dated March 5, 2024;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated March 3, 2024 from C. Watson, W. Thomas, D. Brown, Coordinators, Midtown Community Organization with respect to this matter.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Motion made by S. Lewis

Motion to approve part a) to read as follows:

a)    an extension to the existing Municipal Purchase of Service Agreement with London Cares at a total estimated increase of up to $139,600 (excluding HST) for the period of April 1, 2024, to May 31, 2024 BE APPROVED, to continue temporary drop-in space and security services, as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 20.3 e);

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Motion to approve part b) to read as follows:

b)    an extension to the existing Municipal Purchase of Service Agreement with Safe Space London at a total estimated increase of up to $129,000 (excluding HST) for the period of April 1, 2024, to May 31, 2024 BE APPROVED, to continue temporary day and overnight drop in space, as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 20.3 e);

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Motion to approve parts c) and d):

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in connection with the contracts noted in a) and b); and

d)    approval given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation of the City of London amending existing Purchase of Service Agreements with agencies outlined in Schedule 1, as appended to the staff report dated March 5, 2024

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated March 3, 2024 from C. Watson, W. Thomas, D. Brown, Coordinators, Midtown Community Organization with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

9.   Added Reports

9.1   6th Report of Council in Closed Session

Motion made by S. Lehman

That clause 1 of the 6th Report of the Council, In Closed Session, read as follows:

  1. Property Acquisition – 1040 Hamilton Road – Former Fairmont Public School

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the surplus school site property owned by the Thames Valley District School Board (TVDSB), located at 1040 Hamilton Road, legally described as Part Lot 28, Plan 285, Part Block J, Plan 790 and Part South 1/2 Lot 7, Concession B, as in 142904, 210687, 196909, 373063; except 74630, 210856, 142905; S/T 77819, 78336, in the City of London, County of Middlesex, being PIN 08121-0023 (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 $5,960,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement; and

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

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

That clause 2 of the 6th Report of the Council, In Closed Session, read as follows:

  1. Settlement Agreement – 850 – 870 Wellington Road – Wellington Gateway 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 850-870 Wellington Road, further described as Part Lot 25, Concession 2, in the City of London, being part of PIN 08493-0003, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken:

a) the Settlement Agreement from Claurah Holdings Limited to settle the outstanding expropriation compensation to the property owner for the total sum of $13,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”; and

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

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

That progress was made with respect to items 4.1, 4.4, and 4.5, as noted on the public agenda (6.1/4/PEC), (6.1/4/CPSC), and (6.1/1/AC).

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

None.

12.   Emergent Motions

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That pursuant to section 13.2 of the Council Procedure by-law, the Council decision with respect to item 4 (2.3) of the 4th Report of the Corporate Services Committee with respect to 2024 Tax Policy Expectations BE RECONSIDERED to provide an alternate direction for Civic Administration.

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2024 Tax Policy Expectations:

a) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to include an individual line item on the 2024 City of London final property tax billing and their accompanying property tax pamphlet identifying the impact of legislative changes set out in the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget; and

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2024 Tax Policy Expectations:

b) on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the staff report dated February 26, 2024 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Item 4, clause 2.3, reads as follows:

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the staff report dated February 26, 2024, with respect to the 2024 Tax Policy Expectations, BE RECEIVED for information.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No 74 to Bill No 94, and excluding Bill No’s 89 and 90 and BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Franke

That Second Reading of Bill No 74 to Bill No 94, and excluding Bill No’s 89, and 90 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment Bill No 74 to 93, and excluding Bill No’s 89, 90, and 94 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 89, 90, and Added Bill No. 95, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 89, 90, and Added Bill No. 95, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Franke

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 89, 90, and Added Bill No. 95 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 96 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Second Reading of Bill No. 96 BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment Bill No. 96 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

13.1   Bill No. 74 By-law No. A.-_____-____

Bill No. 74

13.2   Bill No. 75 By-law No. A.-_____-____

Bill No. 75

13.3   Bill No. 76 By-law No. A.-_____-____

Bill No. 76

13.4   Bill No. 77 By-law No. A.-_____-____

Bill No. 77

13.5   Bill No. 78 By-law No. A.-_____-____

Bill No. 78

13.6   Bill No. 79 By-law No. A-54-24____

Bill No. 79

13.7   Bill No. 80 By-law No. CPOL.--

Bill No. 80

13.8   Bill No. 81 By-law No. C.P.-1467()-__

Bill No. 81

13.9   Bill No. 82 By-law No. C.P.-1512()-__

Bill No. 82

13.10   Bill No. 83 By-law No. C.P.-1512()-__

Bill No. 83

13.11   Bill No. 84 By-law No. C.P.-1512()-__

Bill No. 84

13.12   Bill No. 85 By-law No. PW-___

Bill No. 85

13.13   Bill No. 86 By-law No. S.-_____-____

Bill No. 86

13.14   Bill No. 87 By-law No. S.-_____-____

Bill No. 87

13.15   Bill No. 88 By-law No. S.-_____-____

Bill No. 88

13.16   Bill No. 89 By-law No. W.-5683()-__

Bill No. 89

13.17   Bill No. 90 By-law No. W.-_____-____

Bill No. 90

13.18   Bill No. 91 By-law No. Z.-1-24____

Bill No. 91

13.19   Bill No. 92 By-law No. Z.-1-24____

Bill No. 92

13.20   Bill No. 93 By-law No. Z.-1-24____

Bill No. 93

13.21   Bill No. 94 By-law No. DR-__-_

Bill No. 94

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Franke

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 5:16 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 (4 hours, 32 minutes)

Okay, please be seated, thank you. Welcome to the sixth meeting of City Council. We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwock, and Adewan drawn peoples. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home.

We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area. The two-row Waukhamel Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Silver Covenant Chain, the Beaver Hunting Grounds Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Nanfant Treaty of 1701, the McKee Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, the Huron track Treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabek, and the Dish with One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabek and Haudenosaunee. Three indigenous nations that are neighbors to the city of London are the Chippewaas of the Thames First Nation, Haudenosaunee Nation of the Thames, and the Muncie Delaware Nation who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternates, formats, and communication supports for any meeting upon request.

Make a request specific to this meeting. Please contact Council Agenda at London.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. With that, it’s my pleasure to introduce our O Canada singer for today. Tina Powell just performed for the International Delegates last week when London hosted the UNESCO Cities of Music Meetings.

With soft, lo-fi inspired vocals, Woodsy, upright piano, and roadstones, Tina creates a daydreamy bedroom pop sonic appeal that serves as a friendly host for lyrical themes of freedom, nostalgia, and finding self. Tina is currently focused on her role as a keyboardist and backup vocalist with London-based Neo-Soul R&B group Sunshine Makers. Tina is currently recording her solo, her debut solo EP, which is planned for full release in 2025. Please join me, please rise and join me in welcoming Tina who will now perform the National Anthem for us.

(singing in foreign language) ♪ We stay warm and guard ♪ ♪ For we stay warm ♪ I’m gonna start with disclosures of pecuniary interest. Tina, recognitions, there are two recognitions not listed here. I’m gonna go to Councilor Raman for the first. Thank you and through you.

The government of Canada’s theme for International Women’s Day this year, 2024, is invest in women accelerate progress. It’s a call to action and a reminder that gender equality is one of the most effective ways to build a healthier, more prosperous, and more inclusive community. Three important global stats to share, closing gender gaps in employment could boost GDP per capita by 20%. If current trends continue, more than 342 million women and girls could be living in extreme poverty by 2030.

And last, women spend around three times more time on unpaid care work than men. And if these activities were assigned a monetary value, they would account for more than 40% of GDP. Policy makers must value, recognize, and account for the vital contribution women make to economies worldwide through paid and unpaid care work. We all have a role to play in building a future where everyone can reach their full potential.

It’s time to act because women’s success is everyone’s success. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Raman. And I actually had a note for Councilor and Mayor Bergen to do a recognition as well.

He’ll do that now. Thank you, Mayor. I’d like to just take a minute and acknowledge the passing of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. He had the privilege of serving five years while he was in office at the center block on Parliament Hill for the writing of London Middlesex with the number of parliamentary Clifford.

Those were heady days in Canada. And for those who can remember, 1988 election was the free trade election. Mulroney guided us with his leadership boldly into free trade. Free trade that served this country and Canadians well and continues to serve us all to this day.

He’s, of course, was known for much more than just the free trade initiatives, which of course was Canada US, but also the NAFTA, but felt it was proper that this body acknowledge his leadership and acknowledge his passing. Certainly deepest condolences to the family and Godspeed. Yes, and with that, I think there was a request to rise and have a moment of silence for the passing of Prime Minister. So we’ll do that now.

Thank you, please be seated. For the final recognition, I’m gonna move to the podium. Am I good? Good, perfect.

So this one’s gonna be a fun one for me. And I don’t have anything written down, but today, later in the agenda, we will officially repeal the appointment of Lynn Livingston as city manager, effective on the date of her retirement March 15th. And so I wanted to take a few moments to recognize Lynn and her contributions to the city and give her a small, a couple of small tokens of our appreciation for your time here. And I’ll speak, the reason why I didn’t wanna make notes is ‘cause I wanted to speak very personally about this.

I’ve known Lynn for my entire time on council. I’ve known her to be someone of exceptionally high ethics, a moral character, a true leader for this organization that inspires others to do their best and be at their best, including myself over the years. Her commitment to all aspects of the organization is unwavering. Her support for the senior leadership team that she has built is unquestionable.

And she rallies people around her to perform at such a high level of excellence on behalf of city council and all Londoners. For that, you have our immense thanks. Lynn, I’ve also known you as someone who, on a personal level, cares very deeply about those who are less fortunate in our community, those who suffer on our streets, those who need assistance, those who face challenges in our community, and over the past while you have risen to a position of leadership and respect in what is, has been a, not an, I will say, a challenging path to navigate through one of the most difficult challenges our city has faced. But you have done so with what I have seen to be the humility necessary to bring people together, the inspiration necessary to rally people to the cause, and the steady hand and steady decision-making that allows us to take all of the incremental steps we have taken and set us up for the successes that we know will have come and have positioned us as a municipality, and I say this, given the perspective that I have as mayor, us as a leader, as a leader in this space, a leader that is recognized not just across Canada, but in other parts of the United States.

And even as we hosted the city of music meetings from 35 different countries came here, people from those countries have heard about the work that we’re doing on health and homelessness. And I don’t think we would be as unified. I don’t think the community groups would be as together, and I don’t think we would be as far along this path without the leadership that you’ve provided in this space, which to me has been beyond excellent. For that, we thank you.

Now, in your retirement, I don’t know what you’re gonna do next, but I’m sure it’s gonna be very exciting. And on that, I want to recognize that when you become a leader of civic administration, when you serve the time that you’ve served on leadership team and when you become the city manager, and I know this because you and I have conversations at any time of the day or any time of the evening or night, we know that that draws a lot from family. And so to your family, thank you so much for all of the things that they’ve done to support you to serve in the way you have. I know that people cannot serve at a high level without the support of their loved ones and those that they care about.

I know your family will have you back in a way that they’ve never had before. I think if my, like for some of us, we get returned back into the workforce, but for you, I know they’ve been waiting a long time to enjoy that wonderful time that you can spend with them together in the next little while. I know you will still be involved in our community in many different ways. But I do hope that after your retirement, you take some time to focus on the things that you care about, the things that you wanna do, all of those things that may have been on your list to say, I just don’t have time for this yet.

You’re about to have time for it, and I hope that you get to enjoy the many things. I’ve heard perhaps you’re interested in learning things like curling and a few other stuff. I did curling as a kid now, you should not learn from me, but those are the types of things that I see you out there and enjoying, and on behalf of council and on behalf of everybody at the City of London, we wish you all the best in your retirement, and we thank you for your years of dedicated service. So please join me in thanking Lynn Livingston.

So to make you upset with me one last time, I want you to come up to the front, which I know is not your thing, and I have a couple of things for you. I have a card from members of council, and Ed Woldreau always told me make a certificate for every special occasion, so I did. So we have a certificate recognizing your retirement on behalf of the City of London, and if you’d like, you could say a few words. Okay, I would you like me to hold those?

I’ll be your assistant, how about that? You can, you can take these with you then, absolutely. Thank you, yes. Okay, Lynn’s gonna share some remarks from her seat.

Mostly I’d like to get even with Kevin and Deputy Mayor Lewis, but that’ll wait for another time. So thank you for giving me an opportunity to say a few words, and as you’ve noted, I don’t love to give big speeches, but there are some things to say today. I want to say thank you to council. I have great respect for council and the work that you do on behalf of our community.

You give so much of yourselves, and you have an incredibly hard job. One that we try to make easier for you. Council and civic administration have very different roles, but we are aligned in that we share a value of public service. We all want to do better for our community, for Londoners, and so I have greatly appreciated your support as we have worked to deliver on your priorities this term.

Thank you to Mayor Morgan for always being willing to take those late night and early morning phone calls, to work through issues, provide direction and advice, and to have a sense of humor when it was needed most. To those of you that were on the last term of council, as council members and Mayor Holder, I also want to say a very sincere thank you. That was really a time. We worked through COVID together, and we had to manage through unthinkable tragedies together.

And I will be forever grateful for your guidance and support during those challenging times. And if you’ll indulge me, I just have a few more. Thank yous. I would like to say thank you to our many community partners and Londoners.

The city of London rarely does anything alone, and I have been very grateful for the willingness, for their willingness to take my calls, to come to a meeting, to help us solve a problem, and to do great things for our community, to SLT. I’ve been around a long time. I have never seen a team like this. You have a group of very talented and exceptional professionals who are very good at what they do.

They understand your priorities, and will work very hard to deliver for you and for the community. I know you are in very good hands, particularly with Sandra joining us. I’d like to also say thank you to the union leaders. I have been very appreciative of our frank, and sometimes very direct discussions.

We have forged strong working relationships, and that is good for everyone. I’d like to say thank you to Kim Scott and Lindsey Wilcox in my office. Council will know that they are key to making everything run seamlessly. Kim and I have worked together for 17 years.

I can’t imagine what my days will be like without seeing her face every day. I’m immensely grateful for their kindness and support. And finally, I’d like to say thank you to all city of London employees. Your commitment to serve our community with professionalism and care through all manner of challenges has been inspiring to me.

I have been proud to serve alongside all of you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you.

The great news is we got a meeting to do, so I know the greatest gift you could have is a quick, efficient meeting where we’re all done on time, but we’ll work through it as we do. Okay, with that, recognitions are complete review of confidential matters to be considered in public. We have none. Council on closed session, we have a number of reasons on the agenda to go into closed session.

I’m gonna look for a mover and a seconder to move into there, Councillor Cady, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. As soon as that’s ready, we’ll open the vote for closed session. Councillor Trozz, are indicating yes. Councillor Stevenson and Palosa.

E-Scribe is re-updating something. I’m a yes. Yes, also. Thank you, closing the vote.

Motion carries 15 to zero. All right, we’ll be moving to committee room five colleagues. Okay, thanks, please be seated. Okay, we’re back in public session.

We’ve got confirmation and signing of the minutes of previous meetings, we have the meeting from February 13th. I’ll look for a mover for those minutes. Councillor Cady, seconded by Councillor van Mirbergen. It also includes the 29th as well.

There’s actually two sets of minutes so we can approve the 17th and the 29th. That’s gonna open for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, next, communications and petitions.

There are a number of them, but we have a motion that will refer all of those, the relevant portions of the agenda. So assuming no one wants anything dealt with separately, we’ll just have a general motion to refer those to the relevant parts of the agenda. I’ll look, okay, I’ll look for a mover for that. For van Mirbergen, Councillor Ferrara, seconder, and we’ll open that for voting.

Councillor van, thank you very much. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. We have no motions for which notice is given. We’re on to reports and the first report to be presented is the Civic Works Committee.

So I will have Councillor Hopkins present that report and go ahead. Yes, thank you, Your Worship. I’d like to put on the floor the fourth report of the Civic Works Committee. I have not heard from anyone that would like anything pulled.

Okay, anybody want anything dealt with separately? Okay, seeing none. Yeah, just a few highlights to our committee. We did approve the, received and approved the Hamilton E, a core intersection improvements on terror transfer agreement, got some money from the provincial government, which is always exciting regarding our mapping, our energy mapping, our changes to our new garbage calendar.

We approved two contract, renewal contract options with Miller Waste. We received the delegation from the chair of ESAC. And we had a public participation meeting regarding the Gold, CO, and Fort Indian Municipal Drain improvements. Okay, any comments or questions on the Civic Works report?

Go ahead, Councillor McAllister. Thank you and through the mayor. I just want to again, take this opportunity to thank staff and both committee for supporting the Hamilton Road and Gore intersection. It is currently a wide intersection.

It’s a real nightmare scenario. Hear about it a lot. I’m just happy to see something fun to be done with it. And I look forward to seeing a roundabout of that intersection.

Thank you. Go ahead, Councillor Pribble. Thank you, I would like to congratulate and thank our staff for five years in a row, having 100% score in our ratings of the drinking water, which I think is very, it’s very valuable and we all need it. Thank you very much.

Other speakers? Okay, I’m just gonna add, and I’ll just, you call these will indulge me in a brief comment based on what Councillor Pribble said from the chair. It was the note that I had in here to highlight our performance on the drinking water system. There are many, many services that municipality supplies.

One of the most critical is safe, clean drinking water to members of our community and our staff do an excellent job as to the water boards. In doing that, it can often be overshadowed, but it is a critical service that we do an excellent job at. So thank you to everyone involved in that. It’s appreciated.

I think it’s one of the few things that we can go to jail for if we mess up. So it’s like, not only critical, but very important to have the right people managing the system in the right way with the right protocols and safeguards and we appreciate that. So with that, is there any other speakers on? All right, we’re gonna open the entire civic works report then for voting.

Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. And that is my report. Thank you. Next is the report of planning environment committee.

I believe Deputy Mayor Lewis is presenting this for Councillor Layman. Yes, thank you, Your Worship. As Councillor Layman was not able to attend this meeting, I am presenting the fourth report of the planning and environment committee on the committee’s behalf. We had 12 items on the agenda.

I have not been made aware of any others that colleagues wish to deal with separately. However, I am pulling item eight, which was a divided vote on an application for 1494 commissioners road. I voted in the negative to the committee’s recommendation. So when we get to that item, I’ll ask Councillor Frank to put the committee’s recommendation on the floor at that time.

Otherwise, I’ve been made aware of no other items to be dealt with separately. Although I believe there may be some comments on particularly on item for the downtown community improvement plan. Yeah, what other ones would you like to deal with separately? Go ahead, Councillor Troce.

Oh, sorry. I just want to ask a question about five, but I don’t want to deal with it separately. Don’t have to do that yet, but I will make sure you have that opportunity when we do that. So right now we’ve just got one thing separate and that’s eight.

Although I will make a comment on four and Councillor Troce obviously wants to make a comment on five. Anyone, anything separate? Okay, so we’ve got, I’ll let you grab the motion. So I’m moving the entire report excluding eight.

So that’s one through 12 excluding eight. Okay, I’m going to make some comments. I’m going to hand the chair over to Councillor Ramen. Thank you.

I have the chair. I recognize Mayor Morgan. Thank you. I just want to make comments as I did a committee on the amendments to the downtown community improvement plan to introduce new incentive program for office to residential conversion.

This is something that we’ve been preparing for for quite some time. I want to thank Mr. Maders and his entire team for getting this before us as quick as we possibly could, taking advantage of funding from the federal government through the Housing Accelerator Fund to backstop what is a new program in the city to try something different that we haven’t tried before, which I think we need to continue to do in the housing space. So let me first formally again thank the federal government for their contributions under the Housing Accelerator Fund.

We were not only honored to be first in the country to receive those monies as an announcement that was made by the Prime Minister, but also being able to deploy that money quickly and hopefully highly effectively over the next couple of years to create additional net unit units with not just some of the tried and true approaches that we’re going to take, but also trying some new things to see if there’s traction. I will note because I know some people whenever there’s a new program will say, is it enough? Is it too much? How do the cap’s going to work?

We’re going to need to put more money in, there’s going to be extra. The great thing about the Housing Accelerator Fund is we get to try this. We can change it and we can actually redeploy money within that fund to the things that are working best. So as we continue to roll out our investments under this housing initiative, we’ll be able to make the necessary adjustments we need to make to ensure that we’re putting money behind the avenues that are actually creating the units that we’ve committed to creating.

So I’m very confident that there’s going to be some traction here. I’m looking very forward to how this plays out and I just wanted to thank Mr. Mathers and his team for pulling this one together. Quick enough that we can get it out there into the next step and see what comes of it.

So thank you. Returning the chair to Mayor Morgan with no one on the list. All right, I have Councilor Trossach, who wanted to make some comments. My question is about 2.4 and the report heritage easement, particularly clause B and bring back an update by the end of June, 2024.

Are we going to be asked to make a decision at that point or are we making the decision today and that is merely, or are we making a decision today and that is merely informational? Go ahead. Through your worship at that time, we’d be bringing back an actual agreement for Council to either approve or not approve. So you will have all the details there when we bring that back at that point.

Thank you, that answers my question. Okay, any other, okay, go ahead, Councilor Ferra. Thank you, Chair, just through you really quick. I just wanted to make comments also on the residential office conversion downtown as the downtown or a Councillor who has the downtown within his ward, very grateful.

So we’re happy about that. And I’d also include that such as a downtown thing. It’s something that will also be very beneficial to the city as a whole. So much appreciated.

All right, thank you. Any other comments? Go ahead, Councillor Stephens. Thank you, I just wanted to quickly say thank you again to the members of the planning committee for allowing me to do committee work at committee, even though I’m not a voting member, it was appreciated and thank you.

Excellent, okay, any other speakers? Seeing none, okay, so we have the motion on the floor, which is, I believe everything except eight. We’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Okay, and you’re gonna hand it over to Councillor Frank? Yes, I’ll let Councillor Frank put item eight on the floor. Go ahead, Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, I’m putting item eight as it was passed at committee on the floor.

Okay, discussion on item eight. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. So I don’t want to revisit everything we discussed at committee, I voted against the refusal and that’s what the committee recommendation is before us today. Should council reject the committee recommendation, I will then go back to put the original staff recommendation on the floor and that’s why I think it’s important to highlight and why I had this separated out because the recommendation from our staff was to approve this development.

And so now I suspect that whatever direction you may go, and I’m speculating a bit here, but I suspect that this likely ends up in front of the Ontario Land Tribunal either way, but it is going with a staff recommendation in the applicant’s favor already. It was turned down at council or at committee. So I’m recommending council personally, from my own view, refute the committee decision, turn that down and support the staff recommendation. I just want to highlight a couple of things really, really quickly.

We did hear, and although Mr. Corby’s not here today, the setbacks and the additional lot coverage is a result of new zoning lines that would come into place on this property should the staff recommendation be approved in part because the owner actually is conveying lands to the city for the Warbler Woods ESA there and actually are proposing to develop the building closer to the streetscape than the current existing building and remove further impact from the ESA. We did hear a lot of public participation on this particular item, no disputing that. And it is pretty consistent with a lot of the public participation.

We hear concerns about traffic, concerns about sound and noise and light pollution and those things. But in the end, we are talking about an application for development of 10 units, fronting onto Commissioner’s Road. And as we know, well, traffic is a concern that we hear, well, pretty much every planning application of planning and environment committee 10 units impacting the traffic volume on Commissioner’s Road. Statistically, it’s just, you know, it doesn’t register and there was no recommendation for a traffic impact study by our staff in regard to the impact on Commissioner’s Road.

So I just wanted to really quickly highlight why I’m not supporting the committee’s recommendation and why if the committee recommendation is turned down, I’ll put the original recommendation back on the floor. I have, Councillor Frank, next. Thank you. So I will be supporting the committee recommendation to refuse this application.

As well, I just wanted to highlight staff actually only suggested a partial approval, included in their recommendation was a refusal of one of the requested amendments. So just wanna clarify, the original staff recommendation does still include a refusal for a section. And I wanted to clarify, and I think folks who attended planning already kind of heard my comments on this, but for other folks, the main reason I refuse this application is because it doesn’t meet our environmental management guidelines, and I was gonna highlight a couple areas of how it does not comply. And specifically, those require 30 meter setback from significant Woodland, like the Warbler Woods ESA, which is one of our prized ESA’s in the city.

Otherwise, honestly, I would have approved a 10 unit infill project in that location. I don’t think, you know, 10 to 15 cars would materially increase the traffic on Commissioner’s Road. I don’t think it would make the neighborhood less safe. I think it fits with the character of the neighborhood.

The building looks well-designed to me, although I’m not an architect or a designer. And just ‘cause somebody doesn’t currently have a backyard neighbor doesn’t mean that they will never have a backyard neighbor. And I love infill in general, because every unit we add is an unit that stays in the core of the city and is not contributing to our urban sprawl. But, regardless of all of that, which sounds like I’m arguing why we should approve it, regardless of all of that, I care more about the EMGs than I do specifically about, you know, approving any development anywhere.

So that is kind of where I made my decision. The other part is, since this is only 10 units, it does really greatly worry me that we don’t have site plan control. So what gets approved today, if it does move forward, is as is, and given that so close to the ESA, that there’s not a lot of ability for our staff to request, you know, other buffer mechanisms or fencing. Some other background.

So for folks, again, who are in a planning, they’re originally the staff for working with the applicant on a spa use for this space. And there was somewhat of a verbal and a lax understanding of what the setbacks would be at that time. And based on a lot of that, the scoped EIS, so the work that the applicant did, that was based on the spa recommendation, not on this 10 unit info project. And in fact, no scoping was done specifically and it has not met the requirements that we have for ecology satisfaction in regards to the EIS.

So that work has not necessarily been done for this application, it was done for previous one. And the PPS requires development to demonstrate that there’s no negative impact on the natural features of the ecological functions. And that’s the purpose of a buffer. So that’s why we have them in our EMGs to act as a protection zone.

The suggestion from the letter we received from the applicant is that the erosion hazard is sufficient, but erosion hazard limits our public safety concern, not an environmental concern, and actually have no relationship to the measures, including distance, necessary to demonstrate no negative impact. So I think despite some of the information that was sent along from the consultant, a 30 meter buffer is still, again, in my opinion, and in our EMG documents opinion required for this area. So again, I will be supporting the committee recommendation today because I think it aligns with our current policies. Okay, any other speakers to this?

Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And I just want to follow up with Councillor Frank’s comments about there was a refusal to this, the west portion of the recommendation was to go from 1.5 to 2.5. I still think that 2.5 is not the required distance that is needed to protect the boundary tree.

So having said that, I just want to follow up with everyone, just I followed this application for the past eight years or so in the original application, which had a different application number to this application, which is for a four story, 10 unit building, a prior application came forward to put in a spa, which was to change the zoning from residential to commercial, which would require a site plan process, by the way, but it was also to use the structure of the existing house and convert it into a spa. So these two applications to me are very, very different. There was many comments from the gallery, there’s great interest in the community. And yes, we heard concerns about traffic, the standard concerns that we have with infills.

And by the way, there were two applications just down the road that I supported for infill. It is on an arterial road. There is affordable housing in one of those units. So there are opportunities for infill, but I really, really want to caution council if they are going to approve this partial recommendation that we have to get it right because there is no site plan process for overview as we build a four-story apartment building next to an ESA.

I want to just start off by saying that these two applications, 2018 and 2023, are very, very different applications. Again, one is for a spa. One was to use that drip line. Apparently there was a verbal, I don’t want to use the word agreement, that a verbal understanding that that would take place.

That was not considered or should not be considered when we put a four-story apartment building, not having the proper setbacks, if any, that are required with the new environmental management guidelines, which are now 30 meters, which came in place in 2022. So I think we have to be very careful when we automatically want to approve something. And yes, we want units. There’s many good things about this building.

It looks lovely. There are no balconies on the west side. There’s glazing at the front. There’s underground parking.

There are a few things that are good with this development, but I think it’s really, really important that we understand this building is going right next to an ESA without those required setbacks. The EIS that was done, was done in 2018 on a spa. It was not done on this building. And I think there’s many questions remain still that further assessment should be done.

So I do have another concern that I’ve heard about Commissioners Road West being widened. There are no projects going forward in this area to widen Commissioners Road. So the concerns around impacts to the river or to the ESA really aren’t warranted at this time. And if they were, when you do infrastructure projects, there’s environmental assessments that are done to take care of wildlife, lighting, and a number of noise.

All those things are taking into consideration. There is nothing that is being done here if this is approved for this four-story building. So again, for me, it just goes right back to there’s no site plan process. So we have to be very, very careful for this community that values the ESA in the natural areas in this community.

So. - 30 seconds. With that, I am hoping you support the committee’s recommendation. Other speakers, Councillor Troz.

Thank you very much to the chair. I will be supporting the committee’s recommendations. I can’t approve this project. I think the strongest argument, the absolute strongest argument, is regarding the compliance with the environmental management guidelines.

And I think we’re on pretty solid grounds there, but that’s the main reason I feel confident in taking this position. I do want to say generally though, I’ve been very troubled. I’ve said this before, the loss of site plan review takes away a very valuable tool that we have. And whatever argument could have been made in the past about, well, we’ll fix it during site plan review.

We don’t have that. So I think that that place is an additional onus on us as a council to be even more, even more diligent about this. And this is very relevant to this particular application given its proximity to an ESA. So again, I think I really, I really grieved the loss of this additional tool that we had, but particularly, particularly at a site like this, which is very much related to my environmental concerns.

So I’m not going to repeat everything that Councillor Frank stated. I think she did a very good job laying that out. And I support what she said. And I’m not going to be supporting this project.

Thank you. Other speakers, Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you. I’m not going to be supporting this refusal.

You know, it was said here that the owner of the property spent eight years trying to develop this property, doing the studies, making the changes, doing everything that’s asked, gets a staff report approving at least most of it. And still, we’re looking at the committee saying no. We have a housing target. We have a housing crisis.

We keep talking about it. And there’s a saying that says you can either have results or reasons. And we seem to be finding a lot of reasons and people can’t live in reasons, right? Are we going to have houses or are we going to have applications?

So I’m still learning a lot about planning and the challenges that developers are facing. We have a lot of small developers who could one by two by three by four make a huge difference in our housing target, right? To give them the space and the grace to be able to do what they do. This EMG came out in 2021 after this process started.

So I’m certainly not an expert in this, but I’m listening and I’m learning and I think we need as a council to allow development to happen. There are a lot of people who live in that area who might like to downsize and don’t want to leave that beautiful space. And this is a great opportunity for them. And so if this motion fails, I will support the staff report.

Any other speakers? So what’s on the floor is the committee’s recommendation. So we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries, eight to seven.

And that concludes the fourth report of the Planning and Environment Committee noting that even when we disagree, Councilor Frank and I do it very cordially and friendly. It’s a great way to do it. Okay, on to the next report. It wouldn’t be any fun if we agreed on everything.

We’re on to the fourth report of Corporate Services Committee, Councilor McAllister, I’ll let you present that report. Thank you and through the mayor. Happy to present the fourth report of the Corporate Services Committee. I would like to pull number four, which is 2.3 from the committee report.

So I’m happy to put items one through six excluding four on the floor. Okay, would anybody else like anything aside from number four pulled separately? So you’ll put that on the floor. That’s moved by the chair.

That’s everything with the exclusion of four. Any discussion on that? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries, 15 to zero.

Mad Councillor. Okay, I’d like to put item four on the floor. This is the 2024 tax policy expectations. There was a motion, which Councillor Palosa had put forward.

It was moved by Councillor Van Merbergen and then I actually seconded it. I did have some more questions that I wanted to take this opportunity to ask staff, if I could. Okay, this will be your speaking to the motion. So that’s fine.

Go ahead and I’ll just start a timer for you. Okay, thank you. And this is following off with the conversation we had at committee as well. There has been a lot of debate, obviously, through the budget process in terms of wanting to see the impacts in terms of downloading from our provincial and federal partners.

There was a lot of debate in terms of what they should look like, whether it be a tax insert, in terms of calling out the downloading specifically from the province, whether we could have an informative piece in terms of calling out these things and giving more information to the public. Realizing that, what was brought for us, and I do think Councilor Palosa as the budget chair for bringing this forward, because obviously we had a lot of discussion about it. But I think from what I heard, what I still feel like after we’ve had this discussion is that it didn’t necessarily capture everything we were hoping for. Recognizing that staff did speak to that in terms of what could reasonably be captured.

Obviously, there’s a lot of legwork that would go into pulling out all of these items as there are a number of them. But I did just wanna ask through the mayor to staff, in terms of what might be a possibility, would it be possible to pull out the parts relating to bill 23? Some of them obviously were captured. But specifically, and this again, comes from our budget discussions, there were contributions that we as a municipality now have to make in terms of the D.C.

exemptions. And I do believe that that was something that had been discussed, but we weren’t able to capture it in this motion. So just looking to staff to see whether that would be something we could do. Go ahead.

And thank you through the chair. So it’s certainly up to the well of council as to what amounts you’d like to carve out and show separately. So what staff had identified was that the legislative components could be identified separately. Certainly if you wanted to include only one business case.

So if you’re referring specifically to the statutory exemptions bill 23, which was business case PL3, those amounts could be listed separately and would form the basis. That’s approximately, let me just look up how much for the average taxpayer is approximately $15. So that’s what would be shown separately, for example, if that was the full amount that council chose to direct, to have staff show separately on the tax bill. If there was a combination of multiple, as long as the direction is clear, what the direction is that council wishes to have separately, then we can certainly total that up and ensure that there is a context that goes along with that appropriately.

Also included in our tax insert is we have the insert along with the tax bill that has a little bit of commentary. There’s not a lot of room to modify that, but certainly there could be a separate insert also included with the tax bills if that was the well of council. So there’s a couple of options. It’s really up to your direction as to what you’d like to show separately.

And that would dictate what the amount is that would show based on the average taxpayer assessed at the average assessment. In this case, if you were to look specifically for that, it’d be about $15 for the average taxpayer that would show as a specific line item. Okay, and thank you for those questions. I would like to move an amendment, but I believe I will have to hand over the chair or to make that.

Correct. So perhaps you could have your vice chair present the report and could stand up and then you can move your amendment and we can talk about that. So you stand, you’re already presenting what’s on the floor. You’ve taken over the mover of this and Councilor McAllister is gonna be recognized now to make an amendment.

Thank you, Worship, assuming the chair and recognizing Councilor McAllister. Oh, just to be clear, I didn’t give you the chair or the whole meeting. You’re just, you’re just chairing. I was only doing it temporarily, sir, so.

Not that I don’t trust you. All right, go ahead, Councilor McAllister. Thank you. And through the presiding officer, I would like to add an amendment.

I believe it was a PL-11 or PL-13. Thank you through the chair. So if you’re specifically referring to the business case for the Bell 23 statutory exemptions, that would be PL number three. So I would like PL-3 added to this.

I know $15 on the tax bill, but I’m very much aware in terms of what we are asking of London taxpayers to pay. I still think it’s important that taxpayers understand. It’s $15, but it’s still $15 that we previously wouldn’t have had to charge that we now have to charge. I also am looking to Council, whether there are any other specific ones that they would like to see added to this.

This was one in terms of the discussions that we had, which I do think we need to call out in terms of something that’s being downloaded that we now have to cover on the tax bill. So this was one that I identified. Yes, it’s only $15. It’s still $15 that we previously didn’t have to pay.

I’m looking for a seconder. Just, I see lots of seconds. Just give me one second. Yes, the clarification that we just need is from the committee’s recommendation about the legislative changes.

Why is it that one of the legislative changes isn’t captured in the way that Councilor McAllister is asking for? We just want to make sure, because we got to craft the motion to add that addition. It looks like, at this point, it looks like it could be perceived as contained within the previous community direction, but it’s obviously not expansive enough to capture what’s being asked for. So I guess maybe the clarification that we just need to craft the motion is, what is the difference between the legislative changes before and adding this one in?

Thank you, Chair. So as I understand it, what we had identified previously was the total of all of the impacts related to legislative changes. So that would have been business cases PL1 all the way through to PL13. This is identifying only one of those specific business cases that is specific to PL3 only.

So it is a very small, it is only one of the line items contained within the previous legislative. So this is specific to a business case as I understand that the Councilor has put forward. Thank you, that’s helpful. I just need a moment.

The reason why I’m asking is I’m just, I need to make a ruling on whether this is counter the committee’s recommendation or reducing the scope to one item. There was all of the items there before. Councilor Palosa, sorry, go ahead. Sorry, perhaps I can, as was my motion.

I need to be a point of order. I’m not sure if the Council’s intention is to have two separate line items of the ones that we were collecting overall which is about $53 for the average property and then bill 23 separated out separate. I also know that staff had raised some concerns that there’s only so much space on the property tax bill. So I’m not sure if doing bill 23 separate would mitigate actually doing all the provincial costs.

This is where the intent to the motion. This is why I wanna get the wording right ‘cause right now we’re interpreting it as all legislative changes were gonna be there and you wanna reduce it to just one of them. That’s not what you’re asking, is it? No, I didn’t ask for a reduction.

I just wanted one called out. So you wanna pull out, so they’re all together in one line. So you wanna pull it out, create a second line for just PL3. Well, the reason why I wanted to specifically called out was it was in terms of the downloading specifically related to bill 23.

Before I saw it as counter and I don’t see that as counter right, so that’s just a slightly different word to amendment. So what you’re asking for is, he says put all the legislative changes in a line. You’re saying pull one of those out, put it in a separate line and identify that separately. Thus, no, I see no’s.

That’s what the counselor’s intending. If that’s not what something you can do, like I need to know that now. Thank you through the chair. So we have the ability to do one line item in addition to the normal property tax line.

So if the counselor wishes to have the one business case identified separately on the tax bill, we can do that. To have the legislative and the separate item with two additional lines, we are not able to do that with the system. Just to be clear. Okay, and through the mayor to staff.

So the issue I’m having is in terms of, I want the public to be aware as to what that encapsulates. And I know there had been a lot of discussions in terms of there are a lot of things that aren’t captured by this. This is just referring to the legislative. And I do think that that’s actually kind of unfair in a way because it makes it look like, and I think it’s believed 50 something dollars.

And I know this came up when we talked about the budget, but I do think that there are a lot of things contained within the budget, which we have now taken on. I’ve heard this from a number of my colleagues. I asked this in committee and from the sounds of it, it’s too large of an undertaking. So I do apologize in terms of separating this out, but I do think that we need something to be able to show the taxpayers, whether this is an insert, it’s not necessarily a line item, ‘cause I understand there’s limitations with that, but I want the public to be aware in terms of what we as a municipality are required to cover, but then what things have been downloaded and what is being added onto the tax bill.

Because I don’t particularly enjoy the shell game that’s going on. Okay, we’re not into debate yet. We’re trying to get the motion you wanna make on the floor. From the way that I understood it, it’s not technically possible.

So I think you got a couple of choices here. You can, if you wanna change the committee’s motion from all legislative to just one item, I’m gonna say you gotta defeat the committee’s recommendation first and then put that on the floor in place. If you want to add that clarification in a supplemental document or in the brochure, then that would be the motion that wouldn’t be counter because it still allows for the committee’s recommendation to go. So just figure out what you wanna do and then move that because I need to actually dispense with the motions here.

Okay, and through the matter, the pamphlet is already included. So that obviously would be information to be included. My understanding from what was discussed at committee though, was this would be a large undertaking. And I’m not trying to create work for staff.

I do think that this motion should encapsulate more. So I would actually, I’m not then putting forward a motion, but I’m asking them to defeat this motion because I do think that there’s a lot more that needs to be captured in this, specifically around housing and healthcare contained within business cases. I know this is a large undertaking, but I do think to be fair to the taxpayer. A lot of the conversation has revolved around what we have put on the tax bill, but there are other things that we have to take on board that weren’t by choice.

Okay, so Councilor McAllister, so I understand, you’re not now moving a motion. You’re just speaking, so Vice Chair Caddy is presenting the committee’s recommendation. You’re speaking against that to defeat it because it doesn’t capture enough. Okay, so you still have time left, but you remember you only get to speak once.

So I can let you finish that argument, but given its Council, I can’t come back to you. So I wanted to be clear now that you still have a minute and a half to two minutes left, about halfway between about 145. So you can still make an argument if you’d like. Thank you and appreciate that Mayor.

I will just finish my thoughts then as we are at Council and I wanna take this opportunity. I did second this originally. I do agree in terms of what Councilor Ploza put forward. Unfortunately, I don’t think it actually captures as much as it could.

We have heard from staff in terms of, this is a large undertaking and recognizing that, I would offer direction to try to capture items that are directly related to housing and healthcare, noting that those are very big topics that matter a lot to Londoners. I think there are things that can be pulled from the business cases and be added into that singular line that we can have added to the tax bill. I think it’s important that Londoners understand what we have agreed to pay and what we now have to pay on behalf of our provincial and federal partners. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Now I had people stick up their hands before when there was amendments and getting it on the floor. I don’t know where people are. I’ve got Councilor Ploza, Deputy Mayor Lewis, Councilor Trossa, were you looking on this or not?

You had your hand up, but that looked like during the, just put your hand up later if you need to. Councilor Ploza, go ahead. Thank you. For clarity on this one, as I did a 10 committee who had the conversations there, I had worked with legal and our finance team behind the scenes before this was drafted, just so you know, the wording has been vetted by them and timelines and whatnot.

So essentially we got to this point based, and I brought it forward based on conversations and things I heard from colleagues throughout the budget process looking for transparency and accountability and what we fund. With staff, as Ms. Barbona’s already laid out, we only have one line item. So on the tax bill itself, we can’t do the itemized list.

There’s certainly the pamphlet that’s included with the property tax bill that can go into some information on. And it was explained to me that we need to decide at this council meeting for staff has a time to do those changes in the system for it to be sent out for this May. So absolutely you can send it back, work on it, but you’re missing the cycle. I would encourage colleagues to pass this, start the process, and then direct staff at a future meeting to come back with line items that you wanna see or outlines in the property tax brochure and other things captured in that amount of money ‘cause absolutely we fund other things, just it’s buried in other business cases and throughout the system right now and the system’s not set out to already capture that information to give us the whole financial picture.

So that’s how this motion came to be based on what I heard. That’s why I brought it forward. Realizing it’s council and I can only speak once, just trying to think to other things. Like I’m absolutely, I’m not denying we don’t fund other things, but in order to do it for this cycle, this is why it would need to be done.

I’m just gonna always concussion that, whatever that slogan is of perfect is the enemy, the good that council always has split votes on things. And if you vote something down ‘cause you want something different, you very well might not get it and it’s just done. So I always caution colleagues on that as well. And thank you to finance for working with me to bring this forward for your consideration.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you, first of all, I agree with everything Councilor Plaza just said and as budget chair, she knows better than anyone. How much stuff is buried in other business cases. And I look back at the previous multi-year budget as well.

And I’m very cognizant of the fact that there was provincial downloading in that budget as well, which is now built into our base budgets. And I think of the back filling of some provincial childcare funding where they changed the amount. And there was some land ambulance and health unit funding where they changed amounts. And we had to absorb more to ask our finance team well, simply it’s not humanly possible to do that in terms of this property tax billing cycle.

And I think at the end of the day that what we really need to be conveying to residents is how much of their property tax bill is provincial service costs. I don’t think that a lot of Londoners are interested in a line by line breakdown. And even when we talked to, or when Councilor McAllister was referencing PL3, PL10 also has bill 23 costs in. So there would actually be two that are specific to a particular piece of legislation, not just one.

So I think we have to be careful about our own frustrations about where bits and pieces are coming into the budget from the province versus what the public is going to be interested in consuming and absorbing at the same time. I think a global amount is better. When you think about the average property tax bill, and I’m gonna round because I’m not the financial wisdom Ms. Parbon and her team are.

If you think that the average amount is going up by $300 this year, $50-ish running down on this one, that’s one sixth of the property tax bill. That’s not an insignificant amount of provincial services that we’re absorbing. And no, it doesn’t reflect the other five-sixths where there is more things buried in there as well. But I think it is important to have this line item separated out.

I support what Councilor Plos is doing here. And while I recognize the frustration, I think the question becomes exactly at what level are we pulling things apart? Are we gonna start looking at our base stuff that’s built into our base funding now that was a result of an earlier decision to put more burden on municipalities on certain things because there’s certainly a lot of that. It’s not even limited to this current provincial government.

You could actually go back to the start of our multi-year budget process and there was a different party in government, in Queens Park between 2014 and 2018 that put costs on municipalities as well. So it’s a question to me of how far and how deep. I think this is a good starting point. I also recognize that at the end of the day, there’s only so many hours in staff’s bandwidth.

They have to sleep and eat just like the rest of us and I wanna give them an opportunity to do so. So I’m comfortable with where we are on this today. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you.

While I appreciate what my fellow Councillors are trying to do here, I won’t be supporting this. We say that they’re legislative, but they’re not all legislated. And I think there’s a difference, right? Like the business cases, a few of them said they were based on legislative changes, but we weren’t mandated to make those property tax increases.

In several cases, we chose to do that. And so I think we have to be careful in how we’re calculating that. I’m not forward adding any large undertaking to the financial services department right now. I also am concerned that we’ll get a lot of potential questions.

Like some people won’t even look at the property tax bill and those that will are gonna wanna know what that is and our phones are probably gonna be ringing and thinking that we’re dinging them with some extra amount. The province has said that they will make us whole and we haven’t heard about that yet. And I understand the council’s desire to be prudent and put the money aside, but what happens if things change? And we’ve gone ahead and said and told the public that these were legislative downloading that was put on them when actually it was this council deciding to set aside money to offset some of the potential changes.

So I won’t be supporting this. Councilor Trossam. Thank you through the chair. I’d like to start with the question, by what date do you need to have this information in order to prepare the bills that go out?

Do we have another opportunity for the committee to look at this? Go ahead. Thank you through the chair. So in order to provide everything in advance to the printer so they have the proper time to test it, we’re looking at the very early of May to have everything ready finalized to be able to get the tax bills out for the end of May.

So the runway is quite short in terms of trying to get everything finalized and complete. Thank you, but we’re still on the runway and we would be able to do it at the next meeting. Maybe I should give you the date of the next meeting before you answer that. There’s a bit of a gap coming up.

April 2nd, April 23rd, are the next two council meetings. Through the chair, based on those committee meetings or council meetings, ‘cause we wouldn’t have direction until those are complete. If it were even done and complete by April 2nd, that only leaves us a matter of a few short weeks to actually do the work and to complete. We have testing, we have proofs that we have to do.

This would put significant stress on the resources to try to make this happen. So certainly that’s why we brought this, if we had identified to have it done early to give us the direction if the will of council was to proceed, that we would have ample time for testing to be able to go forward and to get these things complete, ‘cause we still have to create the insert. And typically the way the insert reads is there’s not a lot of room for change because there’s three sides to do. We would have to create something new and add a second insert to that.

So the timing to create something from scratch, even if it were approved by April 2nd, would be incredibly tight for us to turn something around and have it ready to the printer by the end of April. My frustration with this, if I can proceed to the chair, is that several months ago when we started this process, I raised the point then, many of us did. We said, we need to have something in the tax bill that advises our taxpayers what the implications of provincial decisions have been made. And all along, I felt that we were hearing, don’t worry about it, we can get to that later.

We can do that after the budget has passed. And now I feel as if questions are coming to the table, what I’m hearing is, I wanna do committee work here, but we can sit here as long as we have to, if this is our last chance to do it. If this can possibly go back for a deferral to the next committee, I think we’d be able to get the information that we need and I’d be prepared to move that. But I wanna make something very, very clear.

In my view, it is essential, given the severity of this tax increase, that we go out of our way to alert our taxpayers, to what degree this was out of our hands. And I think it’s very fair to do that. And I’m sorry that this is, I’m sorry that this is— Hold on, point of order, go ahead. Sorry, just the councilor’s time but deferral, but he’s still speaking to the main motion.

So I’m just looking to see procedurally, if he’s moving the deferral, ‘cause it would take presidents over what’s on the floor now, before he’s allowed to keep speaking. I just need to know where we’re going. Yes, councilor, you kinda got, so I’m not sure that’s a point of order, but what I’ll say is, you got one chance to speak. Talked about a deferral, you talked about staying here as long as possible.

At some point, before you’re done speaking, you’re gonna have to decide what you wanna do, because you’re gonna make a motion, you gotta make a motion in this kind of train of speaking, ‘cause we’re on a committee recommendation that is on the floor from the committee to do a very specific thing. So you have time, but— Okay, just— Thank you, and I feel very hard pressed not having been at the meeting. I feel very frustrated that we’re being pushed here at the last minute to do things that we might not be prepared to do. I want to make it clear that I want to err on the side of including as much, as much of our budget, that’s, I don’t wanna misrepresent anything, but I want it to be as maximal as possible, so the taxpayers understand there’s gonna be anger, there’s gonna be political anger, I’m already hearing it in terms of the severity of the levy, and I think it’s really our responsibility to try to break this out with as much specificity as possible.

So I am, how much time do I have left? One minute and 50 seconds. Okay, in that case, I am going to move to defer this back to the Corporate Services Committee for further consideration. I’m doing that not in the interest of putting more work on staff, I appreciate it.

I appreciate what you’ve been through over the last couple of months with this, but I think we owe the taxpayers as full of an explanation as possible, and I don’t wanna cut this short by not including— Okay, I’m gonna stop you. You’re too deferral now, I just wanna make sure there’s a seconder, then it’s a whole new motion, and so yes, so you have a seconder. So whole new motion, you’re done speaking on the other one. Now, there’s a moved and seconded referral to Corporate Services Committee on March 25th.

Look at the exact wording in a second, but the general concept is, Corporate Services on March 25th to deal with the additional context that we’re looking for, there’ll be discussion at committee, moved and seconded. So I’m gonna get the language up in a sec, but I’m gonna let you make your justification now, and then we’ll have the language make sure the two of you are okay with it in a second. Thank you, my justification for this is, I believe that I’m one of the people on council who has been calling for this for months and months and months, and now I feel we are up against, again, a crisis deadline. We have to get these tax statements out one time, but we also have to be reasonable in terms of what we’re asking our staff to do.

And I think that the more relaxed rules that apply at a committee, at a standing committee, together with the additional information that members of the standing committee and other councillors can ask from civic administration to that report will help us inform this decision. My intention here is to make a well-informed, reasonable decision on this very important matter, and that’s why I’m urging my colleagues to support this deferral. Thank you. I’m always hesitant to sit down at council, ‘cause I know once I do that, I’m done, but I think I’m done.

  • Yeah, you’re, that’s true, very true. And you’re all done now. Sorry, those are deferral in the floor. Does he need to stand as the— Yes, actually, that’s true.

You’re moving in deferral so you get to stand this time, but you don’t get to speak. So I’ll start a speaker’s list on the referral, which is a referral, and at council, there’s a motion before us. That motion is now referred to committee, so it’s the motion that’s on the floor, referred committee for this additional discussion at committee, so it’s going back. Moved and seconded, I’ll start a speaker’s list on this, Councillor Ferrera.

Thank you, through you. And with respect to providing more information to the taxpayers, and I do know that we have that one line constraint, is there, with the tax portal, with the new user interface that we’re going to be giving out to the taxpayer, is there the ability to also provide a full kind of suite of items that can break down the information for where the tax bill is going to be? Is that also something that we can do with the portal? Go ahead.

Through the chair, I’m not entirely sure I know exactly what you’re referring to, so there is our system, and then there is the tax legislation with respect to how the bill is laid out, and what is on the bill is literally prescribed within the regulations for the tax. So there’s the ability for the system to be able to identify something separate and put that on as a line item, through the work of our tax system, and then there’s the actual, what the bill looks like itself. We know that we can do one line item easily. It has been done before, not for probably more than 15 years, so there’s a great deal of testing we’ll have to do.

We know that the legislation will support it and that we can identify something separate. What that separate item is, is certainly what, through the budget process, we had legislated items that were identified separately, that we can point to that the public saw as part of the mayor’s budget identified separately. That is what we had identified as putting separately, because we had clearly marked them as legislative cases. We know what those are.

That is something that, from an amount, we have quantified, we’re able to then follow through with the system. If you’re speaking to the business case that was looking at a new tax system, certainly once now that that is approved, it will take us a number of years to implement. There’s an entire procurement process we would need to look at. So certainly the hope is once that is complete and we select a system, that would need to come forward to council.

So until that is, for a very first step, we won’t know what a new system can or we’ll be able to do in the future. But what a bill looks like is very separate in terms of what the legislative framework is and how we can actually make it look is legislated. So not a lot of leeway in terms of what’s there, but we do know you could identify a separate line item within the legislative framework that does exist. Thank you for that.

So I do understand with like the physical tax bill itself, but I was speaking to the new portal and from what I understand that is gonna take maybe a couple of years before we can fully implement. But within those couple of years, I’m assuming we would have the ability to possibly give that information to the taxpayer when they log in. Can you link this to the referral? Like, so you’re for the referral or you’re against because you’re asking this information?

Well, I’m just, I’m for giving more information as much information to the taxpayer as possible, but I’m also thinking about just the restrictions and constraints that have been spoken to. So I just, for my own decision making is kind of— And that’s great, I just need you to link, I need colleagues to link their comments to the referral, this refer back, so you can say, referring it back to do more context, right? That’s, so I’m just saying you haven’t made that link yet, so if you wanna keep speaking and make that link, if you don’t need to then— The link I have is I guess the taxpayer, so as far as I can— Okay, sounds like, okay, good. Sorry, Councillor Ploza on the referral.

Sorry, I think Councillor McAllister was next as your speaker, and then I would like on your speaker’s list. I’m gonna say, here’s who I have, Councillor, now McAllister, Ploza, Deputy Mayor Lewis, that’s it so far. Thank you, and through the mayor, I appreciate Councillor Trosto bringing forward the referral. As I indicated before, I do think that this does need more work.

Speaking now, I guess as the chair of corporate services, I’m going back to my notes to look at things that I had highlighted through the budget process. When this initially came before us, I was supportive of it, but as, you know, we went through committee, now we’re at council, what really still weighs on me is the fact that I do think that there were a number of things that were not captured purely in the legislative cases. I do think that this referral gives us that time, so I would recommend to my colleagues, I’m sure we all did this work through the budget process to look back to your notes, specifically at the business cases, because I don’t want to just put this on staff. I would like us to come to committee with those cases that we would like to ask them, whether this would fall within the parameters of what we’re asking.

I’m specifically referring to housing and healthcare business cases, but there are a number, I’m sure that we have highlighted through this process. So I am supportive of this referral, you know, unfortunately, if it does fail, I would still support what we have because really, I would take what I can get at this point. I know I had indicated that I would vote against it, but I would like something to be on the tax bill. So I support this referral.

So I ask my colleagues to do so as well to give us some more time. Thank you. Okay, now Councilor Palosa, go ahead. Thank you, and I appreciate where my colleagues are trying to go with this, as they would like to encapsulate the entire picture that taxpayers are paying municipally for other levels of government.

I appreciate where we’re trying to go, but once again, I will reiterate, as you’ve already heard from Ms. Barbone, the timeline is really, really tight and it’s not like they’re gonna delay saying out tax bills in order to get this right this year. Those have to go out. I’m gonna ask colleagues to defeat this.

We’ll go with the deliverables that we can have on the tax bill at this time. As we always take resident feedback, I would encourage us to pass this today as residents get to see it on this tax bill and come forward with questions that that will help inform a future conversation through the Corporate Services Committee of what they would like to see. Staff will have time to dig out what they can separate out for us. I don’t wanna miss this opportunity to operationalize what I’ve already heard at committee.

And I think personally, I believe that this deferral back is going to be making it so we cannot do that on this May, that it’s gonna be next year’s tax bill, that we’re gonna miss that window of opportunity. Thank you very, Louis. Thank you, Your Worship and through you. I’m not gonna be supporting this referral, but I wanna start by saying I appreciate what Councilor McAlister just said about people identifying business cases and communicating things on their own because the property tax bill is not the only method of communication Council has with residents.

In fact, I would argue it’s one of the least effective tools we have to communicate with residents. They get it, they look at the line items, they pay their bill and they’re not happy about it, no matter what the bill is. Well, Councilor Frank is happy about it, no one else’s. We have worldwide newsletters that we can mail out.

We have social media channels that we all use, that many of us you use throughout the budget process to express our opinions on different business cases. Perfectly legitimate reason to be on social media to share with your followers why you’re supporting or not supporting a business case. The same goes for the budget impact. And if we want to do our own homework and highlight something in the health area or something in the housing area or something in another area that is legislatively been put on us by the province, then we should do that.

That’s our ability as Councilors to communicate effectively with our residents. And I think that’s where the onus on this lays. We’ve heard from staff, they can put one line item on the current bill. And I think that that should go on there.

I absolutely support the original committee recommendation because I do think as I said earlier, that $50 separation is important. But I think a referral, we could talk around in circles on hours on this on what each of us thinks should and shouldn’t be in there. And we would all make some very valid points. But at the end of the day, it is not just the property tax bill that is our tool of communication with residents on this.

I don’t think we need to be tasking staff with more effort on this. I think we should get the line item that’s in the original motion. Not refer this back, again, take some of this onus on ourselves to communicate this out to our residents as we see fit to do so. With the tools, we have both those supported by the corporation, like our worldwide mailouts, our town hall events, as well as those that we have ourselves through our own websites, our social media channels, and whatever other means of communication we have.

So I would encourage you to defeat the referral. And let’s move forward with getting that line item separated out on this property tax bill. I have myself next. I’ll turn the chair to Councillor Raman.

Thank you. I have the chair and I’ll recognize Mayor Morgan. Thank you. So I’m not going to support the referral.

And I’ll say why. I don’t think the amount of time that’s there is actually going to satisfy colleagues with getting what they want out of this. And I want to just pick up on a couple of important points that have been mentioned about where we might want to go in the absence of the referral, which I’m against. No renter in this city is going to see this information.

Like the property tax bill is a really not a great way to communicate what I hear colleagues wanting to communicate. So, you know, I don’t think we need more time to figure out the property tax bill. I think we need to have a discussion at committee on how we actually want to communicate the budget overall. And there’s many ways to do that.

There is the areas of provincial responsibility or federal. There’s stuff that we may have picked up because they’ve exited it. There’s the different boards and commissions that can bill us or seek recourse through other avenues. There’s the things that we actually can have control over.

Like the civic administration budget is like something where we have control over that. There are other things we don’t. I think there’s many different ways that we can talk about how we communicate better with the public about how the budget is structured. I just don’t think the tax bill is the place where we’re going to shoehorn a really effective, really clear articulation of what we’re trying to communicate into there.

No matter how much more time we give it. And we’re just going to set ourselves up for running up against a deadline to try to shoehorn it into the tax bill, which I don’t think is the right spot. So I support this idea of let’s talk about the budget and communicate it in a much more clear way to show what will support the discussions we’re having with the provincial and federal governments about areas of responsibility and the fiscal imbalance that occurs out there. Like I think that that’s great.

That’s a good idea. Trying to get it all in the tax bill, given the restrictions we have on it, is not the right place. So I’m not going to support the referral. I don’t think the more time is going to lead us to anything, but still trying to cram this into the tax bill.

I’m not convinced the tax bill is the right spot for communicating this information. Thank you, you’re well under time, returning the chair to you. Other speakers, that’s a ramen, go ahead. Thank you and through you.

So I agree with the sentiment. I agree that we need to be over communicating, not under communicating at this point in time with the community around impacts. They’re feeling it, we are hearing it. So absolutely, I see the value.

The reason I won’t support the referral is because I do think there are other methods that we can use to communicate this. And I’ll give you one example, something that I hope we will utilize more and that is our hydro bills, for instance. So I think we have an opportunity to provide communication. Their cycle is different from this cycle.

We don’t have as much time pressures. We could do that as an insert in our hydro bills, something similar around anything we want to communicate from a city perspective. And I’ve seen it done well in other cities. So I won’t be supporting this for that reason in order to allow us to move this discussion forward.

I will also say that in other cities where they have included more language, their language was different than ours. It wasn’t legislative requirement. It was actually an infrastructure levy. And that was a different conversation that they were having.

So I think right now we’re saying, we’re gonna position the legislative business cases and those that were required into the tax bill. I agree with that completely. And anything else, I think actually requires more nuanceing than this. And I think we need to actually spend a little bit more time working on that, thanks.

Other speakers on the referral. Okay, I don’t see any. So let’s open the referral for voting. Opposing the vote, motion fails.

Three to 12. Back to the main motion. There are a number of people who have already spoken to it. Okay, I was probably, that was gonna be a no.

You spoke, you moved motion, we’re back. So I have Councillor Pribble and Councillor Frank, who I still had on the original speakers list. So I’m gonna return to that on the main motion. Go ahead.

Thank you, Worship, and I certainly wasn’t prepared to support more than one line on the tax bill, but I have a couple of questions through the chair to the staff. In this one line, after the last standing committee meeting, there was a plan to put one figure that was downloaded to us. And this amount, and I heard two amounts, PL3, $15, and all of them together, $55. I don’t know if these were accurate or if these were just examples, but can you please confirm these amounts to me?

And also, what would be kind of in this line? Would there be kind of, your increase is $300 and 55, or is this, or would it be just $55 is being downloaded from higher levels of government? Thank you. Thank you through the chair.

So as identified, the total of the legislative changes that were approved through the budget, total approximately $11 million in terms of what has been added. So the translation to that on the average tax bill is $53 for 2024. So that is what you would see. You would have your line that is the levy listed on your tax and you would have a separate line that would show a separate levy of $53.

We would need to have some corresponding information related to that in the brochure to explain what that is. And certainly, one of the most important parts of this is going to be some of the communication and the work that we will need to do to explain that to the taxpayer what that is. So that is where we need a little bit of time to be able to develop that based on what the direction is from council, and to be able to accompany that and then have that ready by the end of April. Thank you, I do have follow up just making sure.

So the $53 would be stated there and it would be just that it’s being downloaded or whatever words we would use. But there will be no, your tax increase for this year is $400 and 55 of it is downloaded. It will be just the amount, $53, $55, whatever it is, correct? Through the chair, the way the tax bills are laid out and it will solely have an amount that will be there listed separately.

There is no text or any other information allowed on the tax bills that would explain what it is or what it refers to, that would need to be separate in a corresponding pamphlet or document that would go alongside. So personally, as I said, I will support more than one line. Now I’m not even supporting one line. If I get a bill, which is worth five, six, seven, eight, nine, $10,000, and I have that amount of $53, I would kind of, as a resident, I would laugh at it.

I would honestly would. Because if there’s, doesn’t even say it, so bottom line is I’m not supporting even one line. Please do think about it. If you get a bill for six, seven, eight thousand dollars and there’s downloaded from highest levels of government, $53, are you gonna ask yourself, are you working hard enough for me?

And I don’t think that actually the other way around. I think it could backfire because the people who will pay attention, who will, if they don’t pay attention, then why are we putting it there? If they pay attention, just think about it. $53, download it and you’re paying seven, eight, nine, $10,000 or, sorry, four, five, six, seven, eight thousand.

So I will not be supporting this one either. Thank you. Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes.

I’ll be supporting this motion. I appreciate that it was brought forward. I do think we have an opportunity this year if we want further communication that’s included in the tax bill to work with staff on an appropriate flyer pamphlet that goes in 2025. It says it will probably be in a similar tax increase situation.

And I think that future flyer pamphlet could have further explanation and perhaps be able to pull out some of the other areas that we think provincial downloading is happening beyond the provincially legislated area. I’m happy if a resident calls me and says, hey, I got my tax bill. There’s this weird charge. Can you explain it to me?

I’d love to have that phone call. I’d love to have that dialogue with the resident. I think that gives us the opportunity to explain a lot more. Again, beyond, here’s the legislative downloads, but can you also see how we’re seeing an increase in our ambulance bill because they’re sitting at the hospital?

It gives us a wonderful opportunity to have that dialogue with residents and to engage with them on the topic. So I will be supporting this and again, look forward to working on a 2025 plan that’s a bit more comprehensive. Other speakers, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship.

I do have a question for you to staff ‘cause I do think we have to try to get it right. And that is my concern. I do want to support this motion. So my question is around, will there be an annual review because we know legislative changes can happen throughout the year?

So as we go forward, will we be reviewing these legislative changes? Not sure how and when, but would like to have a better understanding because I do want, I want to get it as right as possible. Thank you through the chair. So certainly based on the direction now that if this passes, we would look to put this forward and then focus on the communication.

With respect to 2025, certainly we’re at the Well of Council. If there’s further discussion or planning in terms of what that would look like and how that would be put forward in future years, there’s certainly time to look at what that could be. I would also suggest that it is dependent upon the 2025 budget approval as well. If there are further changes that could include either the same items or less items or amended items, for example.

So I think ultimately that we’ve separated in terms of how we put that forward for Council through the budget process. But if the Council wish to have some sort of other category or to define them differently, that direction would need to be provided before we go forward to put the budget forward and try to allow time to work that into the process. So I hear there’s time. I think it’s really important we do get it right.

So I will be supporting this as much as I would like to see better ways of getting that amount to the public. I think we really need to do our due diligence there. ‘Cause the last thing I wanna know and have that conversation with the public is, well, maybe this amount doesn’t capture everything where we’re not sure. But I’m confident enough that we can get there.

So I’ll be supporting the changes going forward. And I think it’s important that we continue the conversation. It’s not gonna end here. And I know corporate and the chair is listening.

So thank you. I’m next. I’m gonna turn it over to Councilor Ron. Thank you.

I have the chair recognizing Mayor Morgan. Okay, so on the main motion. First off, I wanna start by just complimenting Councilor Palose for actually going to the committee and actually bringing forward something that after engagement with staff was functional and could work for this year based on all the comments that she heard as budget chair through the budget process for transparency. And I actually support that.

However, I just want colleagues to think about this and I know Councilor Pribble touched on it. All we are capturing here, all we are capturing is the legislatively required changes that are increases in this year. And that’s gonna be juxtaposed beside everything else in the budget, which includes lots of other things we’ve taken on in previous years. And those are gonna be lined up for comparison against each other.

And I don’t think that like in our strive for transparency here, I think we might actually make this more confusing for Londoners. And I think we have to find a way to clearly articulate this. Now, one of the challenges we have at the city London is we have a service based budget. So there are many, many, many advantages to service based budgeting.

It’s very clear how much you’re paying for a service in the city of London. What becomes problematic is within each of those service areas, there can be embedded within them, areas of provincial responsibility that maybe we’re legislated to do, places within those where we’re doing it, but we’re offset with government grants that are supporting them. This can actually get quite difficult to pull apart from a service based budget. So I think a conversation of this Council about what are our goals in supporting a higher level of communication with Londoners?

What are the parameters that we’re looking to do? What is actually possible without spending all of our time on doing this with our staff within the way that our budget is structured? And how do we communicate a lot better? And I just think going back to this, there are many ways that we can break down the budget.

It’s probably great for people to see how much they pay for each individual service. But it’s also probably pretty important for people to understand the parts of the budget, that we have absolute and final decision making over and the other parts that we don’t. It’s probably also important for people to know where we’re providing services on behalf of other governments and where we’re not, right? Like, so there’s a transparency piece here that I think is important, but I don’t think the motion on the floor captures any of that in any meaningful way.

And that’s, again, I know that this is what we can do in this moment of time with the tight time frames we have. I just think it might actually set us back a step in the communication rather than take us forward because, again, to emphasize all we’re capturing with this motion is the increases only for the legislative changes that are happening in 2024, juxtaposed against every other part of the budget in one total line. I just don’t think people are going to know what that means and I’m not sure that’s what we’re actually trying to communicate at the end of the day here, having listened to all colleagues. And again, I will say I’m happy to have the conversation and I’m happy to try alternate ways of communicating it, but let’s actually get our parameters right on what we want to communicate and then not be bound by a timeframe or a method to get that communication out.

Thank you, returning the chair to you. Other speakers to the main motion. Councillor Chose, I’ve already spoken to it. You can’t, you’ve already spoken to it, so you can’t rise and then make another amendment.

Yeah, it’s in the procedure by a lot. Once you get one shot, when you speak to make a motion, you’ve done that. You don’t get to stand up and make another motion or another motion or another motion on this. So find someone who hasn’t spoken and quietly whisper to them if there’s something you’re looking to do.

But I’ll tell you who has spoken. Councillor McAllister, Councillor Ploza, Deputy Mayor Lewis, Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Trostav, Councillor Preble, Councillor Frank. Councillor Hopkins and myself are all done. Anybody else who wants to speak?

Sorry about that, but that’s the rules. No one else wants to speak. We have the committee’s recommendation on the floor and that’s what we’re gonna be voting on. Okay, let’s open that for voting.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries nine to six and that concludes my report for corporate services. Great, and I think now is a great time for a break. So I’m gonna look for someone to move a motion for a short recess. Councillor Hopkins, how long, 20 minutes?

How ‘bout 15? Make a motion for whatever you want. I’ll bring forward 15 minutes. Okay, 15 minutes is our seconder for 15 minutes.

Councillor Frank. Okay, all those in favor of a 15 minute recess? Opposed, we might have to do that, okay, all right. My motion carries.

Okay, thank you, please be seated. So just give me a second. All right, Mr. Mayor, when it’s time, I would like to rise and appoint a personal privilege.

My apologies, Councillor, I had a question ahead to defer them to the clerk. Let me deal with the point of personal privilege first. So go ahead, Councillor Pluzza. Thank you, just in reflection to the last corporate services committee in regards to the tax policy expectations.

I heard from colleagues’ conversations that were accurate, that they asked questions throughout the budget debate of when would a pop appropriate time to bring this forward be, they were told at committee that this committee would be it. And then today I hear that they were displeased with staff for not bringing things forward, having heard that we already wanted it. This report of item 2.3 did have a section laid out in it. That staff specifically said, if you wanted something, this is it.

It’s our job to let them know what specifically we wanna see in it and separate it out. And they always do as directed by Council. I’m feeling these comments from at least one colleague was unfair and his staff can’t rise on a point. I’m raising on a point that we talked about it, but we didn’t take action on it until now and that is on us, not them.

So this falls under basically the reputation of staff given what Councillor Pluzza has said. And so there’s a specific section of the procedure by-law on this now. That being said, based on what Councillor Pluzza has said, I agree, in fact, I think I said it in my comments in the debate, so I obviously very strongly agree with it. It is incumbent upon us to bring forward the motions that we feel we should.

Just because we have a debate and a discussion and staff hears it, does that mean that it falls on them to then automatically bring forward something? They take direction from Council and then they take that direction, they return it to us with options for decision making. And so I agree with what the Councillor said. I know you didn’t name anyone.

I don’t think I need to go to our staff on this. I’m just going to say, I think we can all take that and recognize that just because you may want something to happen or we may say it many times in the debate, staff responds to Council directions, not discussions. And when we ask them and they say, we don’t need a motion for that, it’s clear, we’ll bring it forward in a future report, that’s clear. In this case, I agree with the Councillor.

There was nothing that directed staff to bring forward something. Council brought it forward at a committee, we’ve dealt with at a council now. And thank you, I’m going to deem the point of personal privilege dealt with based on the additional context I’ve added. So we’re on 8.4, which is Community Protective Services Committee, I’m going to go to Councilor Palosa to present that report.

Thank you, there’s five items. I’ve been given notice to pull item four, being 4.1. The regulation, the display of graphic images, I’ll do my comments for the other items, no one else wants anything to fold. Okay, so that’s the graphic images went out, anything else, anybody wants dealt with separately?

No, okay, no, okay. All right, so you can move a motion. I’ll put to all other items, one through five, excluding four on the floor. Realizing we did host a public participation meeting for yard and lot maintenance bylaws.

And for a colleagues note, we did change the time of the April 8th Community Prediction Service meeting to earlier in the day on the 8th. So there’s a time change in your schedules once this has passed today. Thank you. Okay, so that’s items one through five on the floor without four, any discussion on those?

Okay. We’ll open that for voting. Close in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you, I will now put the recommendation from committee on the floor for the regulation and display of graphic images.

And this is that it’s referred back to civic administration and the report back at a future meeting of community protective services by the end of Q2 2024 as committee raised all multitude of questions that staff is aware of that will be incorporated into the next report when they bring it forward. This was a split vote at committee and we did have visiting casters as well, so. Okay, the committee recommendations on the floor. I will look for speakers on this.

Councilor Vamever can go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. I will not be supporting this motion. Frankly, in the middle of doing a dance on a huge landmine which is ready to blow called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It’s just something which is needless for us to get involved in. People that peaceably protest and respectfully protest have been doing this for years and years and years. Get very few complaints, if any. And I fail to see how all of a sudden this has become a main priority of this council.

Why are we involved in this and why are we continuing down this road? It is not going to end well for the corporation of the city of London. It won’t end well for London in general. Just see this as something that is not inherent in what we’re trying to accomplish as a council.

People who are protesting and demonstrating do so with deeply held convictions and deeply held beliefs. And they are granted this and their expression thereof through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And yet, here we are. We’re trying to hinder them in these expressions.

I’d like to ask Mr. Catolic, do we get many complaints in terms of the by-law infractions, et cetera, possibly in the last year? Mr. Catolic, go ahead.

Yes, your worship. Last year, there was no complaints investigated largely because there’s no by-law to investigate. In previous years, we did attend complaints, but we attended specifically for contraventions of the streets by-law where the sidewalks were obstructed by persons. Thank you, Mr.

Catolic. I mean, it’s quite clear that this is not resounding in the community. This is not a complaint or complaint-driven process. Something else is going on here.

I mean, we shouldn’t be trying to bubble wrap some at the expense of basic rights of others. And as I said, it’s just gonna end up in a very bad way through the court system. So I would suggest that certainly that’s my position, that we back away from this today, just fold it down. It’s absolutely unnecessary.

Okay, other speakers, Councilor McAlister. Thank you, through the mayor. I do actually think this is an important issue. It is something that I actually have heard from my constituents.

I think if you don’t have a hospital or a medical facility in your ward, maybe that’s an issue. I do hear it a lot. I think it does particularly speak in terms of being targeted towards women. We have said in our strategic plan, we were trying to make this a safe city for women, girls, and those identifying as such, I think it’s incumbent on us to do things that could potentially harm them.

We need to do things that can protect them. I think that this is something we can do. The past council took the bold step to regulate the images that were being mailed out. And I would actually like to take this opportunity to then ask to our staff, has that been challenged at all?

That since that has been passed. Go ahead. Thank you and through Mr. Mayor, it has not been challenged to date.

Thank you, and to that point, as we did it in committee, there were a number of questions in terms of the charter. I do agree that that is something that we have to keep in mind. But as the previous council has demonstrated, there are ways of dealing with this issue and respecting the charter rights. And I think that we should pursue this.

It’s something I have heard from my constituents. And I think we should pursue this. We have given direction to staff to investigate how best to do this within the legal parameters that we have set out. I think we looked to our past council and what they were able to achieve.

You had a very robust discussion on that topic. And I think you were able to land on something that was able to withstand charter challenges. So I would also like to say that building on that success, I think as a council, this is something we can also do. Speaking of someone who has lived out west as well and seen what Calgary has done, they have also had this discussion.

They, I think, dealt with a lot more horrific things in terms of the images that were being displayed. I think there are still limitations. Even within the charter, we recognize our limitations. I saw some absolutely reprehensible things on transport trucks out west, which I don’t think anyone should be subjected to, whether that be man, woman.

It doesn’t matter, I think that there are limitations. You can have your opinions, absolutely. But I don’t think that you should traumatize people to make your point. I think you can do it in a respectful manner.

And I think that we could draft a bylaw that will do that and protect public interest. And I ask my colleagues to support this so we can get something back to us that meets what we’re looking for. Thank you. Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. I just heard my colleagues speak on behalf of women. And I just want to say I’m a lot more concerned about the charter rights of women than I am about a few who’ve unfortunately been through traumatic experiences. But this is about the rights of all women and men to have their— Okay, point of personal privilege?

Yes. And share. I’m speaking on what has been conveyed to me on behalf of women in my board. I’m not speaking on behalf of women.

Okay. Councillor was speaking about communications that he had received from his constituents, not projecting that on speaking for a wider group. So I would ask you to rephrase and— Yeah, thank you for the clarification there. This is an important issue.

I will not be supporting this bylaw amendment. The stated purpose of this amendment is to quote, “To regulate the public display of images showing any part of a fetus on the streets of the city of London.” I am not satisfied that in enacting this bylaw, city council would not be violating the charter right of Londoners, specifically the fundamental freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression. Therefore, I will be voting no. And I encourage all Councillors to do the same.

If this motion fails, I have an alternate motion prepared that the staff report be received and no further action be taken. This, I’ve received a lot of emails on this, a lot of communication. The vast majority are concerned about their rights and freedoms. And I think that we enter into really dangerous territory unnecessarily when we venture into this kind of a space.

If things are legal, legally allowed, we shouldn’t be interfering there. I get traumatized watching cable and flipping through the internet. So I think trying to— I just think this is the wrong move, and I’m hoping that council will reject this. Councillor Ramen.

Thank you and through you. I just want to make sure that we’re clear right now. We’re dealing with a referral back to civic administration to bring forward a draft by-law. Is that correct?

Yes, it’s correct. So we’re not voting on anything that’s been proposed right now. What we’re doing instead is we’re being perhaps responsive to what we’re hearing in the community is concerned. And I will share that concern as well.

And I’ll share it in the context of this. And even in my previous role as a school board trustee, I was hearing from parents that we’re reaching out because almost daily for a very long period of time, kids on school buses were being subjected to graphic images that were on our city streets at very frequented corners of the community. This is not just in areas where there were hospitals. This was at the corner of Masonville Mall, for instance.

So I will say that this isn’t just about, you know, the fact that we’re having a conversation about their charter. We’re talking about the fact that people brought legitimate concerns and said, “Hey, council, can you take a look at this?” And this is members of council responding and coming back to staff and asking for anything that can be provided that would perhaps address some of the concerns. I think it’s okay for us to make those requests, see what comes forward. And from there have further discussion, not shut down conversation about even looking at the possibility of a regulation because we’re concerned about potential charter challenges on a by-law we haven’t even seen drafted yet.

So I understand the concerns and legitimately there’s no desire from my perspective to limit freedom of expression. In this case, though, I do think we can see what staff brings us and see where there’s the opportunity for potentially some address to some of the concerns we’re hearing and seeing. And again, I want to be very clear that, you know, we’re not just talking about women and girls. We’re talking about the fact that this is being displayed on our streets broadly for everyone to see and that there is an opportunity for some to feel harmed by it.

So I would like to see what staff provide before making any self-determination as I’m not a charter expert on whether or not it’s a violation of the charter or not. >> The speakers, Councillor Troz-Hau. >> Thank you and through the chair. Today, I’m simply speaking in favor of this going to our very able staff to send us back a report.

Don’t vote on on today. I’m not putting legislation on the table today. You don’t want to see a staff report? I think we went through a lot of discussion two years ago or was it three years ago when we went through the door-to-door bylaw.

And we received the exact same form letters from the exact same groups. Oftentimes, we received multiple copies of it. Oftentimes, the postal code was at the bottom. Oftentimes, they were from Alberta.

I mean, which isn’t to say that people from Alberta can’t weigh in. But it’s not like we received, from what I can tell, hundreds of communications from people in London saying, “Oh, please don’t do this.” And even if we did, it’s still a legitimate question. We went through a lot of very, very careful back and forth on our last bylaw, which essentially does something very similar. This is a companion piece for the streets and the sidewalks to what we, I think, very successfully did with a door-to-door delivery.

And there hasn’t been a challenge. Yet, we’re hearing the same, exactly the same. It’s boilerplate. It’s boilerplate.

I’m not going to get into the legal issues here. Now, it’s not the place for it because what we’re asking for is a report from our staff to give us more information about the legal issues. So, I’m not going to get into a long discussion about how section two is not absolute. Whoop, I just did, sorry.

Anyway, I’m not going to get into a long discussion about it. I’m just going to say, we’ve been through this before and asked to the question of whether or not there’s been requests for bylaw enforcement. We don’t really have a clear bylaw on this. So, I would imagine not and I think that’s what we heard.

But I do, I can’t say one thing for sure. These images, as they’re being utilized, are causing people harm and stress and in a way that could be rising to the level of warranting legislative action. I hear this a lot in my work because I have one of the biggest intersections in my work, Western and Sarnia, to be clear, where this goes on. And I’m constantly receiving, can you do something about this?

I just, I am so triggered, I am so stressed. I am so, I am so put out by looking at these images. Which, these are not like little leaflets. Whereas I hate can I give you a leaflet, I want to talk to you about this.

This is like a big, big, big, it’s hard to miss. And it’s hard to miss on the sidewalk. And it’s hard to miss as a motorist. So please, let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves here.

Today, I’m asking you to just sort of approve the staff report. And I will be looking forward to having this report come back where we can have a fuller discussion on the merits of this controversial. Yes, very controversial measure. Thank you.

Those speakers, let’s approval. Thank you. Honestly, there’s an issue that I always hear from my constituents or from Londoners when it appears on our agenda. Before, I never honestly did that this was an issue.

And that’s the truth. If I look at what we are sending back to the staff, it’s already spent time on it. It’s restriction of displaying these images, freedom of expression in public spaces. If we go ahead with this, whatever it is, it’s going to come back at certain restrictions, potentially not as deep, potentially not as high.

But they certainly will be. And I think that this is, again, if I look at what our municipal, what we are, our council should be about is the focus on the municipal issues. I think we have many, many challenges ahead of us. And we need to be focused on those municipal challenges.

This, yes, we can introduce a by-law. If we do introduce it, it’s additional work, additional work for our staff, by-law officers not just drafting it, but also them making sure that all the citizens are obeying by the by-laws. I really honestly don’t think that’s our area. They should be focused.

As we know, we just finished our multi-year budget. We do have lots of, lots of 100% municipal challenges. I don’t consider it to be one, this one. Let’s stay focused on the things that we really need to address.

This hasn’t, this, yes, it’s a controversial issue. But again, for me, it comes to the freedom of expression, freedom of rights. And if we go this way potentially down the road, we could have additional ones, additional requests. And I don’t think we should be dealing with those at our level.

Some of the images that were sent to the address, I completely understand, which were stated by two of my fellow councillors. Yes, they went to the private residences uncovered in Envelope now. I do understand, we are addressing this public spaces. We live in a free world, and I hope we stay being a free world, certainly within our municipality.

Thank you. Happy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. And I wasn’t going to speak to this, but listening to colleagues, I have to weigh in just a little bit.

First of all, I will say that I agree with both the concerns that we are treading into a potential field of trouble, but also that we’re hearing requests to do something on this. And I do reflect on the past term of council when we brought forward something that did deal with door-to-door delivery. And I want to say what Councillor Truss out said is absolutely correct. And I looked at it on Sunday night.

And I double checked my folder from the last term of council. The exact same names, the exact same addresses, the majority of them not from London. And I will be a little less diplomatic and considerate than Councillor Truss I was been. For me, someone from Alberta does not influence my decision as a London councillor making decisions for the people of London.

They did not elect me. They did not even live in the provincial jurisdiction in which I’m elected. And those considerations carry zero weight with me when I’m reflecting on what Londoners are asking for. So I agree with everything Councillor Truss out said about this being boilerplate material.

I do think that we have some very real challenges though in how we might regulate some of these displays. And it took us a long time to get to how to regulate the door-to-door mail. Many, many, many, many long community and protective services committee meetings, which Councillor Close and I sat through as well. So I want to, but I also do also understand the, I don’t want to keep asking staff to spend more and more time on this.

But I don’t think asking them to go back and take one more look and come back to us one more time with some ideas, some recommendations is something that is way out of the realm for me to support. I can support that. I do want to take this opportunity though to express the staff my concern and Councillor Cribble touched on this. When it comes to being able to enforce this, I really do hope that when staff comes back, they also provide us some thought in terms of resources and how practical it will be to enforce this.

Because I know for myself, as much as I recognize that there are people who would really like us to focus some enforcement on this, I want our enforcement focused on the property standards complaints. We get about poor upkeep of residential rental units and those things as well. So there’s only so many hours in the day that Mr. Catolic’s team can enforce so many things and there’s a lot of other pressing issues out there that are, again, I don’t want to minimize how this can be traumatic to somebody, but in terms of immediate jeopardy to someone’s life, not having potable water in their apartment or not having heat in their apartment in January because it hasn’t been maintained by landlord is something I want by law prioritizing over images displayed by a protest or by somebody set up on the street side.

So there’s some considerations here that are still out in the wild for me a little bit. So I’m willing to support this referral. I do hope through you. I don’t want to get into amending things.

I just hope staff take my comments about wanting to know about the practicalities and resources that would be needed for enforcement is something they can provide. When they do come back to us with a draft, if this is passed. >> Thank you. And thank you to my colleagues as both sides of this argument and what I’m hearing is accurate.

I would like to highlight that on page two, for anyone who needs it, there’s an employee assistant program. If you felt triggered by the comments here today at council and a public number to reach out for as well, should someone like to have a conversation with appropriate trained people. Speaking strictly on the motion, I’m going to support it. I did so at committee.

And for those reasons that I’ve heard from several colleagues today that this report back, as Mr. Kotok has already said, there’s no by-law they could enforce under currently. So it’s currently done under other by-laws. The by-law that committee asked to come back would be a standalone by-law, like we did for the graphic flyers.

It would not be connected to the sign street by-law one, which is the one that staff had drafted and brought back. So we’re asking for a change and to go back. And part of that conversation, we did have a committee do tie into the questions that Deputy Mayor Lewis just raised about enforcement. How would we enforce it?

What kind of penalties would come with it? If any, how would those be collected through the automated monetary system? So those are some questions that committee asked in the information we want to get back before we even get into a conversation. And as always, if we do decide to go down this path, a public participation meeting would be actually triggered by any by-law change.

Thank you. Any other speakers? Seeing none, it’s the committee’s recommendation on the floor, and we’ll open that for voting. Those in the vote, the motion carries, nine to six.

All right, Councillor. That concludes that report, and then you have me again for audit. I do, and it’s audit time, so you may as well go ahead and do the first report of the audit committee. Thank you.

I’ve not been given notice to pull anything from audit. I’ll hold my opening statements. Should anyone want anything pulled? Anybody want anything dealt with separately on the audit committee?

Thank you. I will put all items one through six on the floor from the audit committee, the first report, and just want to recognize Councillor Stevenson as being elected as the vice chair of this committee. Okay, great. Anybody want to make any comments on the audit committee?

Okay. Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Mr. Troso, closing the vote.

Motion carries, 15 to zero. Thank you, and that concludes the first report of the audit committee. Okay, next we have the fifth special report of the Corporate Services Committee. I’ll go to Councillor McAllister.

Thank you, through the mayor. I’m happy to put forward the fifth special report of the Corporate Services Committee. I have been informed by Councillor Ramen that she would like item four, which is 2.3 from the committee report, which is the government relations consulting assignment. So, I’d like to put items one through three on the floor.

So, does anybody else want anything dealt with separately, aside from how Councillor McAllister delineated it? No? So, I’ll let you move that motion, which is everything except item 2.3 from the committee’s report. Okay, I’d like to put on four items one through three.

Okay, any discussion on those? We’ll open that for voting. Motion carries, 15 to zero. I had concern.

Okay, I’ll put item four on the floor, which is 2.3 from the committee. It’s the government relations consulting assignment. Okay, that’s on the floor. Any discussion?

Seeing none, then we’ll open that for voting. Motion carries, 14 to one. Good, that report. Thank you.

The next special report is SPPC. You may remember this from this morning, so I’ll turn it over to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you with a particular thanks to our City Clerk Department for turning this information around. So, lighting fast for us is our 6-3 special report of the strategic priorities and policy committee.

There are two items, the disclosures and the contract amendments for the overnight and day spaces for unsheltered Londoners, and I’m prepared to put that on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor. I’ll look for comments and debate. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. I’m going to ask for that to be voted on separately again, as we did at committee, and I’m not going to repeat anything that I said at committee. Yeah, that’s fine. We can, so you want to do the disclosures separate from the actual report.

We can do that. The only other thing on the committee is disclosures, of which the— I apologize, I thought this was the one from this morning. It is the one from this morning. There’s only two actual items that we dealt with the item and consent, and then just disclosure.

Yes, go ahead. Maybe I’m not misunderstanding. Oh, okay. I understand what you want to do now.

Yes. Okay, so I’m going to let the deputy mayor pull that apart and present in a way that allows Councillors to vote the way they want to vote. Yes, thank you, Your Worship, and thank you for Councillor Stevenson for asking to have that separated. Sorry, I should have anticipated that.

So, first, I’ll put item 1 from the 6-3 report on the floor. That’s just the disclosures of pecanary interest, then we’ll move ahead to item 2. So, this is just the disclosures. I don’t anticipate anyone wants to debate that, so we’ll open that for voting as soon as it’s ready.

Councillor Closer, thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0. Now, Your Worship, I’m going to proceed in the same order as we followed this morning.

I’m going to put item 2 clause A on the floor, then I’ll do clause B, and then I’ll do the remaining clauses. So, I will put clause 2A, which is the municipal purchase of service with London Cares on the floor now. Okay, that’s on the floor. I look for any discussion on that one.

Seeing none, we’ll open clause 2.1A for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to 1. And now I will put clause 2B.

That is the contract extension municipal purchase of service with safe space on the floor. Okay, any discussion on that one? Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you.

As I said, we had a lengthy discussion about this at committee, and I won’t be repeating that, but I did just want to say in anticipation of many comments, I’m sure I’m going to see on social media where they like to say that I don’t believe that vulnerable women caught in the sex trade that they don’t deserve shelter services, and that is absolutely not true. They will say that it goes against my beliefs, morals, judgments. Again, absolutely untrue. There is no, I fully support services for women in all situations.

This is not about any personal judgment or belief. In Canada, the purchasing of sex is illegal in all circumstances. And on safe space website, it says that their model is one of empowerment with the goal of helping those who provide sexual services to operate with safety and dignity. And so again, like I said this morning, this is a philosophical difference around what help looks like and what should be done with taxpayer dollars.

I will unapologetically oppose using taxpayer money to enable lenders trapped in active addiction and or the sex trade. I’ve been consistent in my voting, and today will be no different. I voted no at committee, and I will be voting no again here at council. Other speakers, seeing none will open this one for voting.

Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to 1. And now through your worship, I will put parts CD and the hit being noted clause on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor. Any discussion on those?

Seeing none, we’ll open those for voting. Vote yes. Thank you. Opposed in the vote.

Motion carries 15 to 0. And that concludes the next report of the Strategic Priorities Policy Committee. Okay, that concludes the regular reports, including the special reports. I have an added report, which is the report of council and closed session.

Councillor Layman has agreed to to present that report and it will present the whole report and then we’ll divide it will present the whole report and then I’ll lift other Councillors. Okay, thank you. I please present the fifth report of council and closed session. One property acquisition, 1040 Hamilton Road, former Fairmont Public School, and on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager Finance supports with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager Planning and Economic Development and the advice of the Director of Realty Services with respect to the surplus school site property owned by the Thames Valley District School Board, TVDSB, located at 1040 Hamilton Road, legally described as Part Lot 28 Plan 285, Part Block J, Plan 790, and Part South Half Lot 7, and session B as in 142904, 210687, 196909, 373063, except 74630, 218052, 10856, 142905, ST77819, 78336, in the City of London County of Middlesex, being pin 08121-0023 LT, the property is shown on the location map as appendix B, the following actions be taken.

A, the agreement of purchase and sale as appendix C submitted by the Thames Valley District School Board, the vendor, to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of 5,960,000, be accepted, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement. B, the financing for this acquisition be approved to set out in the source of financing report here to as appendix A. Number two, settlement agreement 850-870 Wellington Road, Wellington Gateway 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 850-870 Wellington Road. Further described as part lot 25, concession 2, in the City of London being part of pin 08493-0003, as shown on the location map as appendix B for the purpose of future road improvements, to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken.

A, the settlement agreement from Chlora, Chlora Holdings Limited, to settle the outstanding expropriation compensation to the property owner for the toll sum of $13,000 be accepted, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement, as appendix C, and B, the financing for this acquisition be approved to set out in the source of financing report here to as appendix A. The progress was made with respect to items 4.1, 4.4, and 4.5 is noted on the public agenda, 6.1/4/PC, 6.1/4/CPSC, and 6.1/1/AC. Okay, Councillor Frank. Thank you.

Yes, I just want to say that I did declare a conflict of interest for item 6.1 on the CSC agenda as my partner works for the school board. Okay, so we can deal with those separately. So I’ll have Councillor Layman just divide that appropriately. Okay, so I’ll just put one, the property position acquisition at 1040 Hamilton Road on the floor.

Okay, so just that one’s on the floor. Is there, okay, so just the first pieces on the floor, any discussion on that? Councillor McAllister, go ahead. Thank you, through the mayor.

I just want to say thank you. This is obviously a property of great interest in my award, the former Fairmont Public School. I think it’s a great opportunity in terms of potential housing. It’s something I hear a lot from my constituents.

There’s a lot of interest in this, and they really want to see developed into something very productive and meaningful to the area. So I just wanted to say thank you, and I really look forward to seeing what happens to this property in the future. Thank you. Any other speakers?

Okay, seeing none, then we’ll open this item for five. Closing the vote. Motion carries 14-0 with one recuse. Thank you.

I’ll put the second item, settlement agreement, 850-870 Wellington Road, Wellington Gateway Project, as well as the statement that progress was made with respect to the three items on the floor. Okay, any discussion on this one? Seeing none, we’ll open this for voting. Closing the vote.

Motion carries 14-1. And of course, you already made the if-being noted on the other one for progress, so appreciate you doing that, and that concludes that part. Deferred matters is next. There are none, increase.

There are any increase? The none. Emergent motions. Councillor Layman.

Thank you. I’m asking Council to allow our reconsideration regarding number four item tax quality policy expectations for corporate services, and if the chair will allow me, I’ll give a brief explanation why. Just give me one second. Okay, so for colleagues, Councillor Layman can make this motion because he was on the winning side of the previous motion.

It requires two-thirds of all of Council, regardless of whether people are here or not, to be supported. And at your request, yes, you can make a brief, says a provide a brief and concise statement outlining the reasons for proposing such reconsideration, but other than that, there is no debate on the reconsideration piece. So you can proceed with that part, Councillor Layman, and then I’ll proceed to a vote on the reconsideration. Thank you, Chair, and I will re-foul elaborate more if we do get a reconsideration.

I was on the fence on this one. It was an interesting discussion upon reflection during our break. I believe that this would allow more disinformation or confusion to the taxpayer, as the whole picture cannot be presented, so I would like to reconsider my vote. So there’s no further debate on that.

That’s the Councillor’s reasons for asking for reconsideration. What happens is we will vote on the item being reconsidered, requires two-thirds of Council to be reconsidered. Then what happens is that item is immediately back on the floor as it was asked or by committee, and we have, we can vote on it again, but I’ll give more details for the next step at that time. But right now, reconsideration is the vote that we have to consider.

I need a seconder for the reconsideration. Sorry, oh, Councillor Caddie, go ahead. Okay, and you don’t go ahead. You don’t get to speak.

Okay, so we’re going to open the vote or reconsideration now. Okay, one second. We’ll open the vote. Opposed in the vote.

Motion carries 11 to 4. All right, give me one second. So this will immediately put on the motion that we passed in the exact way that it was. I just want to make sure the original mover and seconder are still good with it kind of coming back on at that point.

Just one second. We’re not to debate yet. We’re going to. So there’s no seconder because it was a committee report.

So it was Councillor Caddie because Councillor McAllister wasn’t supportive if I recall. So Councillor Caddie, are you willing to present the motion as it was before? So you just have to stand up and it’s the exact same motion as before. Yeah, sure.

I’m going to read. I’m going to have the clerk read out the motions so everybody can get us back. Motion is as follows. Following actions be taken with respect to the 2024 tax policy expectations.

The specific administration would be directed to include an individual line item on the 2024 city of London final property tax billing and their accompanying property tax pamphlet identifying the impact of legislative changes set out in the 2024 to 2027 multi-year budget and be on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports. The staff report dated February 26, 2024 be received for information. Okay, so basically reconsideration is a reset of this. So that means it’s a clean speakers list.

It doesn’t matter if you spoke before. I started a new speakers list on this item on the floor. I see Councillor Hopkins with her hand up and I’ll start taking, I’ll start taking names on this. So go ahead, Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. I do have a seizure question though. Don’t mind if you take that from the time that I speak here, but why is this an emergency motion, a reconsideration of a vote? I can tell you that.

I’ll take that as a point of order on the order of the business of council. So reconsideration of the procedure bylaws is a motion to reconsider a decided matter of council in the same meeting in which the original motion was decided shall be introduced at stage 12 emergent motions of the council, unless the chair determines that there was a clear misunderstanding of the question that was put, in which case the motion for reconsideration will be introduced immediately of the original vote. So my understanding is it’s not a misunderstanding of the question that was put. It’s the council are thinking about it and changing their mind.

So this is the appropriate place for reconsideration at a council meeting to occur as per the procedure bylaw. Well, that’s good to know for future meetings as well. So I will not be changing my vote and supporting the committee’s recommendation. Okay, thank you.

I have Councillor Layman next. Thank you. My apologies first to everyone here for taking some extra minutes here at the end of a long meeting. I was on the fence on this one.

I was reflecting on the comments made by many, somewhat to see further detail broken out by our obligations from higher levels of government. But then I was thinking of it as much as the motion wanted to go there, I thought it would muddy the waters. People wouldn’t understand what that line item is. I thought back of some of the comments that’s incumbent upon us to explain to our constituents the reasoning behind our decisions made at budget time.

Actions of higher levels of government is highly complex. And it’s an ongoing thing. Is it a fixed moment in time? There is one thing, but it could change month to month or year to year.

I mean, the comments that the province will make us whole regarding DC charges, that’s in flux. There’s other things that are in play to narrow it down to a simple line item. I think would cause more confusion and not achieve the goal. I think that was intended by including that plus, you know, incredible amount of work on staff to go through this for what I now consider would be of questionable benefits.

So that’s why I will change my vote. Okay. Thank you, Councillor. Any other speakers to this matter?

Go ahead, Councillor Palosa. Thank you. And respectfully, I can speak to the intention of this motion since I’m the one who made it. And I do believe it speaks to that.

My question now, I guess public perception wise, maybe just more a comment that we have a vote, we go, we have break, we chat, we come back, we change votes, concerned about how that looks publicly for transparency purposes. Also, my question is, colleagues would, I’m not sure if you’re just going to defeat this or if you want it called on separate, that if you just call it separate, it still exposes with the business the Council for today and the reports received and it’s a take no action. But it still leaves you that there’s nothing coming back to corporate services of anything you ever want to see that staff has no direction on this tax bill or any or future ones of what you want anything to capture. So I’ll leave that to you, obviously I’m supporting it, but someone will need to decide if they want to go to separate or just defeat it and do something else.

So I’ve done my work. Yes, Councillor Roman. Thank you. I just want to rise on a point of personal privilege.

I don’t like the insinuation that there was some sort of discussion that I’m not privy to or aware of that happened that has now been entertained as something that may have influenced the way that we just went about our business and I’d like that withdrawn. Yes, Councillor. So the point of personal privilege is that is, I think your speculation there turns as being received as an accusation and I think that’s probably something you should appreciate where the Council is coming from. I was spoken to at break.

Yeah, so it does not pertain to Councillor Roman. I have concerns about how this is going down. I’ll retract it if the Council is taking an offence. I did not mean to offend Councillor Roman, but I’ll leave it there.

Okay, other speakers. Seeing none. So this is the original committee’s recommendation on the floor. I’m going to ask, because I’m a member of Council, to divide the question because there’s a piece here on receiving the staff report.

I just don’t know how the vote is going to go, but I want to make sure we could still receive the staff report that was associated with the tax policy piece, which is kind of important to receive that information. So I’m requesting that it be divided, and so we will divide these votes. Okay, so it’s just A now, which is the direction about the property tax billing. Just A, we’re going to open that for voting.

Opposing the vote, motion fails seven to eight. Okay, and now part B, which is the staff’s recommendation report. Opposing the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Other emergency motions.

Okay, we’re on to bylaws then. We’re going to divide up bylaws based on, okay, here’s how we’re going to divide up 70 bills 74 to 94, excluding 89 and 90, 89 and 90 relate to the Wellington Gateway. After we deal with those ones, we’ll deal with 89 90 and bill 95, which is the one related to 89 90 and 96, which then deals with the Wellington Gateway ones, plus the new Wellington Gateway one coming out of in camera. So all three of those are together, and then we’ll deal with added bill 95, which is the one that Councilor Frank declared a conflict on.

So bills may be numbered incorrectly there, where I just want to make sure that I have that because although the order was as we dealt with them, it might be a different bill order. So 89 90 and 95 are the Wellington Gateway ones. So we’ll deal with so that is as I said it. Yeah, okay.

74 to 90, excluding 89 and 90. Mover for that. Hopkins, Councilor Hopkins and Deputy Mayor Lewis. We’re going to open that for voting.

Close in the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0. All right, second reading. Very seconder.

Moved by Councillor van Mirberg and seconded by Councillor Frank. Okay, so that vote was canceled. I’m just going to say one word on this. I’m not going to leave the chair.

This package of bills includes the rescinding, the actual formal rescinding effect of at the retirement of the city manager’s appointment bylaw. So I know we said some very nice things at the end of the meeting are at the start of the meeting. Now we’re at the end of the meeting. I just wanted to as we go through this formal motion, just once again, thank you for your service to the city of London and all that you’ve done for this community over your years here and knowing that you still have a little bit of time left.

But this is this is kind of that moment where we actually make the council decision to to let you go. So we’ll see. Maybe we’ll all vote against it. Okay, so I just I didn’t want that moment to pass this by because it’s it is the formal way council decides things.

So this is the moment where we accept her retirement. With that being said, does anybody else have anything to say on this package of bills? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Thank you closing the vote.

Motion carries 15 to 0. And third reading of the same set of bills mover. Bill 94 only has two readings for today. So now for third reading, it will be everything except bill 94.

So I’ll look for a mover of that. I have Councillor ramen and Councillor cutty. 94 for those who are asking is a drainage bylaw of which we can only give first and second reading for. This is very standard in the way that that we do these.

The drainage bylaws do have two readings and then third reading later. So if everybody’s looking like, what did we pull off? This is something that happens from time to time. So very normal, nothing odd there.

So I have the mover and a seconder for the same package of bylaws with the exception of 94. There’s no debate on third reading, so we’ll open that for those in the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0. Okay, so now we’ll do the ones related to the Wellington Gateway 89, 90 and 95.

I’ll look for a mover of those. Here’s his 96. So 89, 90, 95. Councillor Hopkins, Councillor Frank moved and seconded.

It will open that for voting. Was in the vote. Motion carries 13 to 2. Second reading moved by Councillor Layman seconded by Councillor Ferrera.

Any debate? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Was in the vote. Motion carries 13 to 2.

Okay, third and final reading of those sets of bills moved by Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Frank. All those, sorry, it will open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to 2.

Okay, and now the final one that we have is Bill 96, which is the one that Councillor Frank declared a conflict on, so I’ll look for mover and a seconder for Bill 96. I think Councillor McAllister, seconded by Councillor Cuddy, will open that for voting. Okay, second reading of that. Councillor McAllister, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Any debate or discussion on second reading? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Rong, thank you. Closing the vote.

Motion carries 13 to 1 with 1 with 1 with 1 with 1 with 1. And final vote on this item moved by Councillor Ferrera, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. We’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote.

Motion carries 14 to 0 with 1 with 1 with 2. Okay, that concludes the by-laws, which means there’s just a motion for adjournment. Moved by Councillor Vamehavaragan, seconded by Councillor Frank, with this by hand, all those in favour of adjournment? Motion carries.

All right, thank you. We are adjourned.