March 18, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by H. McAlister

That Items 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.8, 2.9 and 2.10 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   1st Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee

2024-02-22 ACAC Report

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the 1st Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on February 22, 2024, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.2   3rd Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee

2024-03-07 AWCAC Report

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on March 7, 2024:

a)    the Mayor’s Office BE REQUESTED to write a letter to the Pearce family thanking them for the contributions of Johnny and Gabrielle Pearce for their actions relating to wildlife; it being noted that the attached Community Contributor article entitled “A Closer Look at the Wildlife in Our Neighbourhood” was received;

b)    the Civic Administration BE INVITED to discuss the use of rodenticides and potential impacts to wildlife to a future Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee (AWCAC) meeting; it being noted that the AWCAC held a discussion with respect to this matter;

c)    the following actions be taken with respect to a potential Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee (AWCAC) display at Go Wild, Grow Wild on May 4, 2024:

i)    the Civic Administration BE ASKED if the AWCAC can join the City of London booth; and,

ii)     the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee BE ASKED if they are interested in attending with the AWCAC and potentially the City of London booth;

it being noted that W. Brown, A. Hames and M. Toplack volunteered to be present at the booth; and,

d)    clauses 1.1, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 5.1 and 5.3 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.3   Approval of Odell-Jalna End of Mortgage Exit Agreement

2024-03-18 SR Approval of Odell-Jalna End of Mortgage Exit Agreement

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by H. McAlister

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 March 19, 2024, related to the Approval of Odell-Jalna End of Mortgage Exit Agreement:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024 to:

i)    approve the Exit Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, between Odell-Jalna Residences of London and The Corporation of the City of London and its Schedule “A”, the Rent Supplement Agreement between Odell-Jalna Residences of London, Homes Unlimited (London) Inc. and The Corporation of the City of London;

ii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development to approve amendments to the above-noted Agreement;

iii)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Agreement;

iv)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, or their written designate, to approve and execute future exit agreements and rent supplement agreements between The Corporation of the City of London, Odell-Jalna Residences of London and Homes Unlimited (London) Inc.; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to:

i)    continue discussions with Odell-Jalna Residences of London and Homes Unlimited (London) Inc. regarding exit agreements having the same framework as the Exit Agreement and Rent Supplement Agreement, being a framework, which permits Rent Geared to Income units, once vacant, to be moved within the Homes Unlimited (London) Inc. and Odell-Jalna Residences of London portfolio to create mixed income buildings, noting that the funding for each designated housing project entering into an Exit Agreement shall be based on an evaluation of the applicable building’s financial plan and result in no material increase to the City’s overall housing subsidy budget;

ii)    to re-invest any anticipated future municipal mortgage subsidy savings in the larger social housing portfolio to address the long-term financial sustainability of the sector while maintaining existing service levels in order to retain existing rent-geared-to-income units until necessary agreements are negotiated; and,

iii)    report back to Municipal Council on an overall strategy outlining the requirements to meet legislated service level standards, to ensure an adequate local supply of social housing that is financially viable and in adequate operating condition;

it being noted that the Civic Administration are anticipating strategy reports on the financial analysis in Q2 and a service agreement report in Q3 of 2024. (2024-L04A)

Motion Passed

2.5   Inspections By-law – Housekeeping Amendments

2024-03-18 SR Inspections By-law - Housekeeping Amendment

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated March 18, 2024, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024, to amend the Inspections By-law. (2024-C01)

Motion Passed

2.8   London’s Newcomer Strategy: Choose London – Innovative, Vibrant and Global

2024-03-18 SR Londons Newcomer Strategy - Full

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Acting City Manager, the staff report dated March 18, 2024, with respect to London’s Newcomer Strategy: Choose London – Innovative, Vibrant and Global, BE RECEIVED. (2024-C08)

Motion Passed

2.9   Data Provision Agreement Update for HIFIS Usage

2024-03-18 SR Data Provision Agmt Update for HIFIS Usage - Full

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager Social and Health Development the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated March 18, 2024, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024, to:

a)    approve the Data Provision Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, between The Corporation of the City of London and His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities;

b)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or their written designate, to undertake all administrative acts, including amendments to the agreement that are necessary in connection with the above-noted Data Provision Agreement, on the condition that no additional funding is required or if funding is required and it is provided for in the City’s current budget and that there is no increase in the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London; and,

c)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Data Provision Agreement. (2024-S14)

Motion Passed

2.10   Winter Response 2022-2023 Final Report

2024-03-18 SR Winter Response 2022-2023 Final Report

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the staff report, dated March 18, 2024, with respect to the Winter Response 2022-2023 Final Report, BE RECEIVED. (2024-S14)

Motion Passed

2.4   Renovictions – Initial Research Report

2024-03-18 SR Renovictions - Initial Research Report

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with respect to a Renovation License and Relocation by law; it being noted that a public participation meeting will be held with the introduction of a new By-law. (2024-S11)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.6   Business Licensing By-law and Fireworks By-law – Amendments

2024-03-18 SR Business Licensing By-law and Fireworks By-law - Amendments

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Managers, Planning and Economic Development and Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 18, 2024, related to Amendments to the Business Licensing By-law and Fireworks By-law:

a)    the revised proposed by-law, as appended to the Added Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024, to amend Business Licensing By-law by adding a new Schedule for Consumer Fireworks Sales;

b)    the revised proposed by-law, as appended to the Added Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024, to amend Schedule “A-5”, being the Administrative Monetary Penalty System (AMPs) By-law and adding new penalties for Consumer Fireworks Sales;

c)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the Added Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024, to amend By-law A-59 being “A by-law to provide for Various Fees and Charges” to add Consumer Fireworks Sales Business Licence Fees;

it being noted that the communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from B. Amendola, D. Ronson and B. Samuels, with respect to this matter, were received. (2024-C01)

Motion Passed

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by E. Peloza

Motion to approve that the delegation request from B. Amendola, to be heard at this meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

Motion to approve:

“That the matter be referred to staff for further work on licensing issues, including:

a)    limiting the allowable days for firework sales preceding days permitting allowable discharge of fireworks to (3) three;

b)    applying the licensing fee on a per-day and per-vending-site basis;

c)    requiring a pre-vending inspection of all vending sites;

d)    further specifying the content of the notice to be given to all purchasers of fireworks;

e)    limiting number of vending sites permitted in the city; and,

f)    reviewing the licensing fee and the administrative penalties.”

Motion Failed (2 to 3)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by E. Peloza

Motion to approve that:

“a)    the revised proposed by-law, as appended to the Added Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024, to amend Business Licensing By-law by adding a new Schedule for Consumer Fireworks Sales;“

Motion Passed (3 to 2)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by E. Peloza

Motion to approve that:

“b)    the revised proposed by-law, as appended to the Added Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024, to amend Schedule “A-5”, being the Administrative Monetary Penalty System (AMPs) By-law and adding new penalties for Consumer Fireworks Sales;“

Motion Passed (3 to 2)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by E. Peloza

Motion to approve that:

“c)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024, to amend the Fireworks By-law PW-11 by allowing for consumer and display fireworks to be discharged on four specific days;“

Motion Failed (2 to 3)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by E. Peloza

Motion to approve that:

“d)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the Added Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal   Council meeting to be held on April 2, 2024, to amend By-law A-59 being “A by-law to provide for Various Fees and Charges” to add Consumer Fireworks Sales Business Licence Fees;“

Motion Passed (3 to 2)

2.7   Parks and Recreation Master Plan Annual Report

2024-03-18 SR Parks and Recreation Master Plan Annual Report

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services and Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report dated March 18, 2024, with respect to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Annual Report, BE RECEIVED. (2024-R04)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   2024 Rock the Park One-Time Policy Exemption Request

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager of Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 18, 2024, related to a 2024 Rock the Park One-Time Policy Exemption Request:

a)    the report above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a by-law to amend CPOL.-142-394, being “Special Events Policies and Procedures Manual” to the April 2, 2024 meeting of Municipal Council should approval be given for a one-time policy exemption for the use of Harris Park for 5 consecutive days, (Tuesday July 9 through Saturday July 13, 2024) for the Rock the Park event;

it being noted that the communications, as appended to the Agenda and the Added Agenda, from B. Jones, A.M. Valastro and B. Amendola, with respect to this matter, were received. (2024-M02)

Motion Passed

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by J. Pribil

Motion to approve the request for delegation status from A.M. Valastro, to be heard at this meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by H. McAlister

Motion to approve part a) of the motion.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by H. McAlister

Motion to approve part b) of the motion

Motion Passed (3 to 2)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   (ADDED) Reduced Parking Incentive Pilot Project

That it BE NOTED that the Community and Protective Services Committee considered the implementation of a reduced parking incentive as a pilot project until the end of Q3 2024 for Municipal Lots 1 & 2 utilizing the existing HONK mobile application.

Additional Votes:

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by E. Peloza

Motion to approve that the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to implement a reduced parking incentive as a pilot project until the end of Q3 2024 for Municipal Lots 1 & 2 utilizing the existing HONK mobile application; it being noted that Municipal Lots 1 & 2 have a lower hourly and daily revenue intake in relation to other parking lots managed by the City.

Motion Failed (1 to 4)

6.   Confidential

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the Community and Protective Services Committee convene In Closed Session for the purpose of considering the following:

6.1    Solicitor-Client Privilege / Financial Information Supplied to the Corporation in Confidence

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose and financial information, supplied in confidence to the municipality, which, if disclosed, could reasonably be expected to prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of a person, group of persons or organization, with respect to the financial information related to the London Cares Winter Response contract.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

The Community and Protective Services Committee convened In Closed Session from 4:00 PM to 4:27 PM.

7.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 4:29 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (3 hours, 25 minutes)

Okay, good afternoon, everyone. This is the fifth meeting, the Communication Services Committee. The City of London has situated in the traditional lands of the Nanashbeq, Potashoni, Lenapawak, and Adewandran. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture, the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home.

The City of London is currently home to many First Nation, Métis, and Inuit today. As representatives of the people of the City of London, we are grateful to the opportunity to work and live in this territory. For everyone’s information, I am joined in chambers by all the committee, being myself, Councillor McAllister, Pribble, Troso, and Ferreira, and we have a few visiting Councillors as well. The City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communications supports for meetings upon request.

To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact CPSC at London.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. Looking to committee members to see if there’s any disclosures of pecuniary interest, seeing none. On consent, I’ve been given notice in advance to pull the following items, 2.4, 2.6, 2.7. So that was the three that I have in advance.

So 2.4, 2.6, and 2.7. I know there’s questions on other ones, but for the ones to be pulled, looking to see if there’s anything further. Okay, so looking for a mover and a seconder for all consent items, excluding 2.4, 2.6, and 2.7. That is moved by Councillor Ferreira, seconded by Councillor McAllister.

And I will start my speakers list with whoever would like to go first. So that’s all I can send is on the floor now for questions, excluding 2.4, 2.6, and 2.7. Okay, I saw Councillor McAllister’s hand first, and then Councillor Travsau’s, and then Councillor Privelle. Sam, your mic’s on, Councillor, sorry.

Thank you, through the chair. Question in regards to 2.3. I’m just curious in terms of our end of mortgage exit agreements, I know this is kind of a hot topic in that area. Can we anticipate more of these?

Where are we at in terms of working through that list? Mr. Mathers, or Mr. Felberg?

Certainly, and through you, Madam Chair. So this is the first one. So this is the first one that we brought forward. The, in the report you’ll also see, and it’s recommendation H, and then it be noted clause.

We’re gonna come back to you folks with a more detailed financial analysis and a bit of a strategy on where we’re going from here and what the impact of that is. With the approval of P-11 through the multi-year budget, that has impacted a little bit, and how the province funds us through Coachee, and then what the tax-supported component of it as well, and give you a sense of where we’re going from here. Councillor? Thank you, and through the chair.

So in terms of a timeline, when can we anticipate to see more of these? Just out of curiosity, I know some of our nonprofit housing providers, it’s usually a question they have for us. Thank you. Through you, Madam Chair.

So depending on each provider, each provider may have a different time when their mortgage runs out or when their operating agreement runs out. So future agreements would be timed with when that happens. So there’s a bunch of analysis that we need to do in order to assess where they’re going, if they’re ready to exit the agreement. What we aren’t anticipating though is we’re not anticipating many more exit agreements.

We’re anticipating it’ll be service agreements, which is essentially taking some of the provisions under the Housing Services Act and putting it into a local context, working with the municipality and the provider. Councilor, hey, Councilor Trostan. Thank you, and this is just a question. I’m not offering an amendment on this, but on the housekeeping amendments for the inspections.

There are other items that this council has been discussing, and I’ve had numerous conversations with Mr. Mathers and others personally about this. And I’m just wondering, and I’m assuming in enacting this housekeeping amendment, I’m not precluding other housekeeping amendments coming up ‘cause nothing else is being decided, is that right? Yeah, and certainly realizing a decided matter of council for one year, just wanna make sure that if there’s more coming when and once the appropriate time to do more.

Through the chair, so we can make changes that any time this report coming forward doesn’t preclude any future changes. Okay, so the other items through the chair that I would hope to see coming forward per some of our discussions that I would consider to be housekeeping amendments and not big changes in policy would be number one, instituting a report, frequency to be determined to a city council on property standards and by-law matters along the lines of what the building department gives to us every month or every quarter. Okay, the question does that? Through the chair, so we did bring forward an annual report.

If there’s direction from committee, as far as what they would like us as a timing, we would take that, but at this point, we’re not planning any type of changes to that annual reporting, but if it’s something that council would like to bring forward as a suggestion and have a resolution around it, then we’d be happy to oblige. Could you just tell us when that annual report’s expected? Through the chair, the annual report came in January. Councilor Troso.

Okay, I guess I miss, I’m sorry, I probably misunderstood where we were with that. So I would need to bring forward a specific action item and that would originate from this committee and I’d like to put that on the agenda then for the next committee to get that report. The other one is protocols for communicating with complainants after they file a complaint. That’s another matter that we’ve had numerous discussions about and I’ve expressed my concerns about complainants not being notified about the status of their complaints and we had discussed the possibility of enacting some protocols.

And my question is, is that also something that I would need to bring forward as another amendment and would that be considered housekeeping? Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, I’m going to pass this to Doris.

We have been working with our legal folks on this to understand what the best practices are, but I’ll pass this back to Doris. Thank you, Mr. Catolic. Yes, through the chair, that motion would have to be a motion to change the council’s policy by-law because it refers to the enforcement policy with respect to active complaints and also has implications on privacy.

So if I understand the answers to the question then on the first inquiry, that could be housekeeping. The second one would need to be more of a policy change. Yes, that’s correct. The first one, as we discussed at the January caps meeting where we’re discussing the annual report, we are looking at reporting out metrics on the website because that’s the most efficient way of doing it.

And the second one would be a change to the municipal compliance policy. Thank you very much. That answers my questions. Perfect.

Councillor Pribble, I had next on the speaker’s list. Thank you, answer the chair to the staff. We’re going back to point two point three, which is the audio gel now. I have two questions, actually one question on page 16.

It states that financial analysis and strategic plan recommendations. And if you go under recommendations under the age, I just want to make sure when are we going to receive the strategic recommendations as well because on page eight at the bottom, it does address the financial analysis Q2 and service agreement Q3, but the strategic recommendations were not expecting to receive those. Thank you. The staff, please.

Thank you and through you, Madam Chair. So the intention would be to combine some of those strategic recommendations in with the financial analysis. What we need to really understand is what the implications are long-term for all of the providers that could potentially be exiting and how we might be able to stage that out over the course of the next couple of years. So we’ll be bringing our intention is to bring back at least the preliminary component of that in Q2 of this year.

Councillor. Okay, thank you for that answer. And earlier today, there was an email that came from Jim Foote Vice President and Treasurer with four points. I don’t know if my colleagues had a chance to actually rate it a short time ago, but I just want to hear the feedback from our staff about these four points, please.

Thank you. I’m not sure if staff was even copied on that correspondence. So if you have, you can comment and if not, that will have to be up to us to raise the questions. To you, Madam Chair, would it be appropriate for me to circle back with some detailed responses to each of the questions?

We have seen them, but we need to assess it really in the context of our technical analysis and we can send that to the committee after the fact. So Councillor, they’re working on in-depth answers, just not available at this time is what I’m hearing. Thank you, and by one, please. Through you, Madam Chair, as soon as possible, hopefully by the end of the week.

Thank you very much. No more questions? Thank you. I’ll note that also that this committee meeting feeds into the April 4th council meeting.

So that’s our timeframe between committee and council, just as we wait for information and move forward with decisions. Looking to see at this time, I’ll go to Councillor Ferra. I do recognize Councillor Stevenson as a guest at committee, but just one committee members first. But I do and will recognize Councillor Stevenson in a few moments.

So Councillor Ferra. Thank you, Chair. This is also going off, I guess, kind of coming off of Councillor Pribble’s questions for 2.3, for the exit agreement, rent supplement agreement. I do see that there’s a big push for kind of moving towards more mixed communities of what we’re trying to do with this report.

I just wanted to ask a simple question. Mixed communities, we won’t see any net loss of RGI units or anything like that. It’s just integrating, I guess, the socioeconomic aspects for the mixed community part within this type of housing. Mr.

Felberg. Through you, Madam Chair. So what’s really unique about this group is that they have not only do they have the four rent-gear-to-income social housing properties, but they also have an additional seven affordable housing projects. So what we’re looking to do is create a portfolio approach where they can spread those RGI or rent-gear-to-income units across all of their properties so that they’re able to leverage the affordable housing in the market of the different properties based on when vacancies occur.

So this is somewhat unique and really recognizing the amount in the capacity that this group has. Councillor? Thank you through that. I have no questions after that, thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. Mine is regarding 2.10, the winter response. And I just wondered if, I guess because this is the wrap up of the $5 million from the previous winter response, I was looking for how did we do in terms of the commitments that were made coming out of the hunger strike in terms of what was in the accountability working group update that came to us just after we came into this new council on November 29th, 2022.

So when I go back and look at it, the London Cares Hub at 602 Queens for the one year, December 2022 to 2023, it said it was going to be open 12 hours a day, seven days a week, including holidays. And I know we had them operating a center at the Unity Project site, 717 Dundas, as well as the 679 Dundas Street one. So I guess what I was looking for was more information in terms of outcomes in terms of the service provided. ‘Cause here the 679 Dundas Street, it says day services or Monday, Wednesday, Thursday for three hours, Tuesday, Saturday, five hours, and the night is five days a week, night time drop in is five days a week.

Given that that particular location, 679 Dundas didn’t really get beds going until after the last report that we had that went to the end of March. So we had a detailed outline of the number of beds that were available, how many of them were used. I was wondering if it was possible to get some of that information maybe prior to council, just an update on those ones that ran programs from April to the end of November. Mr.

Dickens, and noting as well that this report is 2022 to 2023 numbers. Thank you and through you, Chair. That’s certainly doable. I just think just so I have clarity for my team as well, just what, so we have some of the service impacts or some of the service numbers in the schedule here in the report.

And I’m just wondering specifically what type of outcomes the council would be looking for before council. Councilor Stevenson? Yeah, thank you. Just confirmation on the hours that were operated and the number of beds available and utilized.

I think similar to what was presented when we did the more full someone in the, for the stuff that ended the end of March. Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Chair, and that won’t be a problem.

We’ll go through and get that stuff. I know we’ve reported throughout this process from, as you noted, this is from 2022 and 2023 through some of our reallocation reports as well, that those organizations were unable to open and full scale on the anticipated timelines and that’s why there was unspent funds tied to it. So we can go back through and comb some of those previous reports or maybe some of that information handy for us. Thank you.

And that would be circulated in advance of council on April 4th. Okay, Councilor. Perfect. And thank you.

And just to be clear, it’s really the April to November is that last half that I’m looking for, thanks. Councilor Pribble. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just two point, sorry, 2.9. And my question is, are we looking, I know all the organizations that we are funding through City, they don’t have the access, not all of them to the HFS. Are we looking into the opportunity for all of them to have access and to input the data directly? Thank you.

Mr. Thank you, and through you, Madam Chair, we actually have a process where agencies that have base funding with the city. And as council approved some two year funding back in February, all of those organizations will be onboarded if they’re not already into HFS. Where we struggled with historically was around the one time funding in the short term agencies.

It was just the resources and the timeline to bring agencies on, to staff those agencies up, train those staff and just didn’t align with the shorter term programs. So it is a direction from the provincial government to have as many funded and non-funded agencies on in utilizing HFS in our community. Our London Homeless Prevention Network, we refer to that as LHPN, does have an onboarding process for funded and non-funded agencies. And so any organization who may be interested in utilizing HFS can make application to my team, which will be brought forward to that LHPN group for consideration and approval.

Councilor Pervall. Thank you very much for that. And one follow up, the ones that we have approved for the two year agreement, as I heard, not all of them are on. And we are planning to do it to the rest of them, which are not included by one, please.

Mr. Cooper. Thank you, and through you, Madam Chair, any organization I can’t say for certain all of them are, I don’t have the list of all the organizations that we approved in February. I believe 99, probably 99% of those organizations are already utilizing HFS.

It is a requirement of their contract that we will be implementing as of April 1. So we will look to onboard them as quickly as we can within my available staff team resources, so that they’ll be able to input that information as quickly as possible. Councilor? Any opportunity then completed before the April 1, or with April 1, so there everyone is on board?

Let’s go ahead. Thank you, and through the chair, at this point, likely not, our team is really focused on ensuring we have all those contracts in place, as well as we are at your end for our provincial and federal dollars. So there’s a lot of work behind the scenes in reporting to the provincial and federal ministries that do restrict my team’s capacity. Thank you, and then the last question, I’ll go the other way.

By one, at the latest, do you feel comfortable that we could have all of them onboard to the team? Thank you, and through the chair, it’s a continuous process. So I don’t want to really put a date on it. We’re moving as quickly as we can.

There is a set process within our London Homeless Prevention Network 2 onboard organizations. These organizations, if they’re not currently in HFS, would be prioritized as part of the contract implementation and moving forward. So I don’t want to put a date to a per se. It is a priority for our team.

If there is an organization that is currently funded for that two-year period that does not have, or is not utilizing HFS to onboard them into HFS. Councillor, without putting too much pressure, but is this your feasible? Mr. Cooper.

Thank you, and through the chair, yes. It is feasible within 2024. Thank you. Thank you.

I see Councillor Stevenson, and then before we do the vote, I’ll just make a couple of comments from chair, the chair, when everyone else has their opportunity. Councillor? Thank you. I just had a question on this HFS as well.

I noticed some of the information is required, and then there’s some that’s optional for participants to respond to. Is it easy to get compliance there in terms of the required section? Like what happens if you’ve got participants who don’t want to answer the questions or provide the information? Or is that something that even happens?

Mr. Cooper. Thank you, and through the chair, we do have some options where people can decline to answer. So that would be a way to continue on with the onboarding into HFS.

Again, the work there is a continual improvement, right? So as we build the relationship with an individual who is accessing services, they may in the future wish to disclose any information that they may not have in the past. And so our organizations are able to, if they’re able to ascertain that information, can upload it into HFS. So there are some options where people can decline to answer.

And then I say it’s a continual improvement to try and get as much information as we can to assist with any services that that individual might need. Councillor. Thank you, just as a follow-up. So when it says it’s required information versus the optional, even on the required, they can decline to answer, Mr.

Cooper. Thank you, through the chair, yes, they can. We have that for a number of options, but we don’t wanna have that as a barrier then for somebody to be able to access service or to get into HFS. So we recognize that a lot of the work we do is relationship building with individuals and building trust.

And so information is shared quite freely as that trust is built and increases. So to not be able to create a HFS profile or have somebody come into HFS where they have declined to answer a specific question around age or gender, this seems counterproductive. Councillor. Thank you, I appreciate that.

And is it, I guess I’m just wondering if it is an issue in terms of the reliability of the information or if you find that it’s a small enough subset that it’s not impacting sort of whether we know who is accessing services or some of the other important criteria? Mr. Cooper, I’ll just sort of recognize that as we’re talking about people’s information making them identifiable, it’s not only have ID to prove even what they are saying. So I know it’s more of a fluid conversation as some of our residents were trying to help.

Thank you, and through the chair, it is a small subset. It doesn’t really impact our data information. And many times we can sort that data out, should it not be reliable? So if somebody has an answer to a certain question that we’re trying to understand to say an average age for an individual who is accessing a certain service, we could pull that information out because it could potentially impact what our numbers might be, right?

So it is not significant from the data that I’ve reviewed in the last year and a half when we have been looking at by name lists and other data around housing placements and shelter usage that we can run in hyphes. Hey, looking as if there’s any further comments or questions? Okay, just briefly from the chair. I just wanna recognize that the accessibility committee just recognizing and thanking Jamie Nard for coming on as chair and Susan Manopoul as vice chair to thank you for them for serving in this capacity.

And as per item 2.3, the O’Dell-Gelna end of mortgage x agreement, thank you to staff for your work on this, recognizing it is a unique opportunity. And as the word counselor of general woods, I have reached out to the board too, that if there’s any assistance in any capacity that we’re partners in serving and many doors are open to them. So thank you for that. Seeing no further, one more hand up, perfect, just in time, Councilor Trossa.

Thank you, just a minor comment. I would like to acknowledge in the animal 2.2, the animal welfare committee advisory report, the work that’s been done by Johnny and Gabrielle Pierce, who are residents, they’re youngsters, they’re residents of the Brookdale community, and we’re very proud of them for writing a piece, that went into the neighborhood magazine about a closer look at wildlife in our neighborhood, and that’s been reproduced for you in the CAHPS agenda. And I just wanted to acknowledge the work that they did on this, and that’s all, thank you. Thank you, anything further before calling the question?

Seeing none, calling the question. So Trossa, I need your microphone. I vote yes, yes. Supposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you. I will now go through consent in numerical orders. I know we have some guests here with us to hear this conversation. So run evictions, the initial research report.

I will turn over to staff for a very brief overview. Also noting that I’ve received in advance a couple questions of clarity of when the full report is coming, and when would the timeline to enact anything be? So Mr. Catolic, I believe it’s your overview, and those two questions were submitted in advance.

Thank you, and through the chair, Mr. Ling will provide a summary of the report shortly. Our plan is to prepare a draft by-law by the end of Q2 of this year. After that, we would move forward to a public participation meeting, and then following that, depending on council direction, prepare a report back on implementation, including a financial analysis and staffing implications.

And in that report, we would outline operationally when we would begin enactment of such a by-law. There’s a number of provincial matters at hands too, because while we’re doing this work, if the province moves ahead with legislation, because there’s numerous interior municipalities looking into this matter, it may alter our plans and reporting back as well. So I’ll turn it over to Mr. Ling.

Perfect, and welcome, Mr. Ling. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Today, we’re here to present our research and findings regarding renovations.

Renoviction is a term that on its surface describes a situation where a landlord evicts a tenant because they intend to perform renovations on the rental unit or property, and they require the unit to be empty to make those changes. In Ontario, this intent to evict, demolish, or convert to a non-residential use is formally made through the NN13 notice. The renovation eviction process is outlined in the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act, the act which sets out the rules for navigating the landlord-tenant relationship. What is being discovered, however, in Ontario and across Canada and worldwide, is that not withstanding the form of rules, there are other forces at work, which are leading to a larger problem, which has been labeled as renoviction, but often referred to in the literature as structural displacement on a broader level.

Aside from the European examples provided in our report, we highlighted a couple of cities in British Columbia, New Westminster, and Burnaby. These two cities have identified, or did identify issues regarding tenant evictions based on renovations and moved quickly to craft tenant protection policies in order to address the situation. These policies are considered by many, or have been considered, to be outside the scope of municipal power, but the cities enacted them regardless in order to help protect their citizens. We have had discussions with both the mayor and staff of New Westminster and staff in Burnaby regarding their previous and current situation.

As indicated in the report as well, the BC provincial government adopted a number of the measures that these two municipalities had enacted, which was intended to strengthen their Provincial Residential Tenancies Act. However, notwithstanding the provincial changes, both municipalities maintain a robust tenant support system in order to identify and fill the gaps they still see regarding provincial enforcement in British Columbia. In Ontario, the city of Hamilton has introduced a bylaw and an associated program to address what they and others have identified as shortcomings in the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act. This new program is expected to be in place by January of 2025, including a new bylaw.

In our discussions with Hamilton staff, the purpose of the bylaw was to provide a process to mitigate the landlord-tenant relationship that should help eliminate bad faith renovations, allow honest landlords to carry out necessary renovations and over repairs to their properties, and to deter landlords from arbitrarily evicting tenants using the N13 process or the threat of that process. The work presented in our report focuses more so on the narrow renovation definition, but we have included discussion in that report on the broader forces to help inform our next steps and ensure we are aware should alternative processes, protections or partnerships arise during the next stages. As shown, evidence of renovations specifically and structural displacement more generally is present in London, and the official data does not provide a full measure of the impact. Unfortunately, many people are simply unaware of their rights as tenants, and the administrative steps set out by the province that go into maintaining that relationship between the tenant and the landlord are complex.

Hamilton’s proposed bylaw and the New Westminster and Burnaby examples summarized in our report target specific service gaps to help ensure their citizens are at the very least aware of their rights. This awareness alone can help to reduce bad faith renovations. Further, the bylaws and support programs in place in those cities help to facilitate that complex provincial process and relationship where renovation requiring eviction is needed. Also maintaining that connection between the tenant and landlord that is essential throughout the entirety of the process from being displaced to going back into the unit.

As indicated in the report, and by ORIS, the staff intend to report back by the end of Q2 with a draft bylaw, including addressing those matters from January 24th resolution pertaining to renovations. Thank you very much. Thank you. Looking to start my speaker’s item list on this one.

Okay, I’m aware of a potential motion floating out there. So either I would need staff’s recommendation, which we received this report to be put on the floor or an alternate motion. Councilor Troso. Thank you.

I want to start by saying, thank you so much for your report. This was a very thorough and well-researched report. I think it stands for the, stands as sort of a model for really top of the line staff work. And I really want to thank you for it.

It was well-documented. It was well-researched. It was evidence-based. And it was most significantly was, it was based on the experience of other jurisdictions that have gone through this.

By looking at the Hamilton bylaw and the experience in the BC jurisdictions, I think you’ve saved a lot of staff work and you’ve expedited the timeline for the implementation of this very badly needed remedial, remedial measure, which is well within the jurisdiction of the health and safety powers of the city. So first and foremost, thank you. This was a wonderful report. Now, what I would like to do is, I think the Hamilton bylaw is pretty solid in terms of what we need to do.

Now, this, the Hamilton bylaw talks about licensing and this is a, there are two aspects of licensing here that I think it’s important that we distinguish. We had previously asked for a report back on amending the residential landlord-tenant licensing bylaw to look at the threshold for what triggers the general, the general registration requirement. And that is not on the table today. And I understand that there was a clause in the report that said we’re coming forward with the Part A because of the more urgent nature of it.

So I assume that regardless of what we say today, the other parts of that referral are still being worked on by staff and will come back to us in key two. And you’re nodding, you don’t have to answer that. What I would like to do is I would like to explore the possibility of doing this a little quicker in terms of the Hamilton bylaw that’s appended as Part A. Now, I’ve gone through the Hamilton bylaw very, very carefully and it seems to me, and if there’s a reason why I’m wrong about this, I’d like to hear about it.

Other than changing the word Hamilton and London, my view is this bylaw is good to go. And we should have a public participation meeting and we should have a cost estimate in terms of what will be required to implement this. I initially had suggested through an amendment that I circulated to some of the Councillors through the clerk that we actually enact this at our April 2nd meeting, but I think it will need a public participation meeting. It is going to be a controversial measure and I think a public participation meeting is warranted and I would like to get more information from the staff in terms of the costs.

Now, on a cost recovery basis, this should not be a burden on the city because I think the costs for this are going to have to be borne by the potential licensees. And after all, one of the purposes of this proposed bylaw is to discourage people from filing frivolous and eviction notices. So what I would like to propose is that we include in this, and this is an inquiry whether we can do this, I don’t think it’s contrary, but could we include in the motion that we passed today, the notion that we will set this for a public participation meeting based on the Hamilton bylaw and that we will await any changes that need to be made to that and we will also await a cost schedule. But what can we do to expedite this?

Thank you. Yep, I’ll note that we’re at the end of Q1. Staff said draft bylaw for Q2, which very well could be the next meeting of caps, could be three months from now. So just looking for a timeline for that first and then or to be included with the councilor’s questions.

Through the chair, we’ll have a response for you shortly. We just want to make sure that you’ve spoken to legal about this as well. So for us about back is spot there. So he’s going to provide you a little bit of background on how we can proceed.

That was a nice holdover, Mr. Catolek. Thank you. I have a concern with that approach and my concern is based on our experience with other bylaws that we’ve passed where there’s been applications to quash and we’ve been very successful in the courts in those applications because we’ve gone through a process of municipal scans, research, dropping a bylaw, having a public participation meeting, reporting back on a public participation meeting, having further community discussions, and then we’re in council’s hands whether they want to pass the bylaw or not.

If we simply just took Hamilton’s bylaw and change it from Hamilton to London, so this is now ours, I’m actually not sure because of some IT issues Hamilton has been having over the last couple of weeks. Were there bylaws stands? Is it currently under appeal? Is it fully passed?

We’re not up to speed on exactly what Hamilton is doing. However, I am aware that Hamilton is looking at hiring eight full-time staff to implement their bylaw, including three licensing staff, three bylaw officers, a solicitor, a housing clerk. So we looked at that model, this that if the implementing the Hamilton model not only impacts municipal compliance services, it also impacts Mr. Dickens service area and legal as well because we will see additional property standard appeals out of this.

So I would recommend, when I’m in council’s hands, to have staff report back with a city of London bylaw, there are aspects of Hamilton’s bylaw that initially we have some better wording. We have also been in discussion with BC municipality on their wording. So we’re getting best practices across Canada. So that would be my recommendation that we, if council wishes we respond back with a city of London bylaw, go through a public participation process and follow the standard procedure.

And just a follow up. Do you know when in Q2 that next draft bylaw and subsequent report would be expected? Through the chair, it’ll be near the end of Q2. Thank you, Councilor Trossa.

Well, I don’t think until I heard that last point, I didn’t think we were that far apart. The reality on the ground is that tenants need this relief and I mean, I’d be interested to hear what the different language would be, but I’d really like to expedite the reporting back on that. We’re in Q2 at our next meeting. I don’t wanna delay this three months ‘cause so much good work has been done.

I’m gonna yield, I’ll save the rest of my time and yield to the other councilor. Okay, I’ll also note, I actually don’t have a motion on the floor for us to be discussing at the moment. Councilor Ferra, perhaps you have some questions and then we can move forward with the motion. Thank you, thank you, Chair.

So with respect to what I heard from Mr. Catolek, we did redraft the bylaw that you might originally saw for a more specific London bylaw, which is giving exactly what you kind of spoke to, staff to report back to look into the costs associated in the resources and everything like that. And we just circulated that very late, so apologies for that, so you might have not been able to see that. With respect to the tie for the Hamilton, we do have a motion that still hasn’t been put on the floor, the renovation, license, and relocation language for the title of the bylaw itself.

But we do have a motion and I would be willing to put it on the floor that basically asks for that. So I guess I’ll move that motion and the clerk does have it. I can read the motion out. Okay, so the motion reads— Okay, so just one second.

As you read it out, can we put it on the screen as well? Okay, we’re just gonna put it up in eScribe, realizing that Councilor Ferra is the mover. I don’t have a seconder yet, but just as you read it, we can see it as well, and hear it and then we can look for a seconder. So as it comes up on the screen, I’ll just read it out.

So the amendment or the motion is that civic administration report back regarding a renovation, license, and relocation bylaw, along with estimates of the costs associated with enactment and corresponding licensing fees at the Q2 2024 report. It being noted that a public participation meeting will be held with the introduction of a new bylaw. Can we have a chance to read it? Okay, Mr.

Catolic, I’m not sure if this is in line with the report back that would be coming regardless in Q2 or if this looking peer feedback. Yes, and through the chair, may I ask the councilor a question? Yep, for clarification, please do. Through the chair, I heard the councilor say that the council redrafted a bylaw from Hamilton.

Could I get clarification on that, please? Yeah, Councilor Ferra, you did say you drafted a bylaw, just making… Looking for clarification, I misspoke. I didn’t draft any bylaw.

We were just kind of tying off with the bylaw that we saw from Hamilton within the report, and we do know that we have to have an application that fits the city of London, so which is why we pulled the language specifically for Hamilton and just used the language for the renovation, license, and relocation parts. So the councilor for clarification does not have a bylaw that he drafted to be included with this motion? No, we’re asking, yes. Thank you for that clarification.

We have, our plan is to report back at the end of Q2 with a draft bylaw that we will drop for a future public participation meeting in Q3. Normally after that, we report back on public comments and have an implementation plan, and that includes the cost of staffing and associated fees depending on what type of recovery we’re looking at. Hamilton has, for example, a 10% recovery fee, so there will be some further analysis taken, but we’re looking at this process very similar to the way we’ve enacted larger bylaws, like the vehicle for higher bylaw and the rental licensing bylaw. Thank you.

Is there a seconder for this motion? Okay, the seconder would be Councillor Travsau. This item’s on the floor. I do have a quick question to Mr.

Catolic, looking to see if this would be contrary or in line with what staff would already be working on for a report back, and two, if that report back will also include a source of financing as we heard that Hamilton expanded for eight staff. Yes, through the chair, generally would be in line, but I have to caution that future reports could amend the costing of this program. Okay, commencing my speakers list. Hey, I’ll start with committee members first, and I recognize that Deputy Mayor Lewis is with us today, and we’ll be on the speakers list.

And I do believe Councillor Ramen is online as well if they would like to weigh in on this. Councillor Ferra. Thank you, so that’s the reason we brought this motion is just to kind of just constrict the scope of what we’re trying to do in the most immediate terms, because I would consider this part of our housing emergency as well, just because we have seen the numbers, and this is a real occurrence that’s happening here in London. I would also say, speaking to the report, it was a very great report.

I really liked the information in that, and this whole agenda, actually even with everything else, I’ll be keeping this just for review, for other items as well. And I would say that many people are unaware of their rights as tenants, and what gaps really exist that they could step into. And usually people are not aware of these gaps until it’s too late, until they’ve fallen in. So we’re looking for a way to provide a clean and direct enforceable pathway of communication between the tenants and landlords.

And just last week, I see these inquiries all the time about N13s, and just last week I had a tenant who told me that she was served an N13 by our landlord in April 30th, 2023, and she informed the landlord that she is gonna be returning to the unit when the work has been done, and we’re almost coming up on the year span, and she is now at the point of taking legal action with her landlord, because the landlord has given her a very vague response, but it seems to be tying in the municipality in its cover, and verbatim, the email that I got with the landlord gave to this tenant was that the municipality as to the deficiencies therein in mandated revenues thereto before allowing reoccupancy, and they are basing that on some work that is supposed to be done. So I would like just to be a little more focused on how the city can manage these certain situations, and also not be used to get in the middle of an N13 renovation. So it is an emergency situation as I see it, which is why I’d like to see that this motion get pushed on through. I was hoping that we could get in line with how the city of London works, so I do understand that a Hamilton by-law would not necessarily be applicable to the city of London, with respect to the fees, the resources, industry, individuals who are on the supply side, and this is why we have this motion here, and this is why we’re looking for the support, because we would like staff to look into these matters and speak with the different stakeholders available just so we can have something that fits London very well.

I also just want to speak to something that’s not necessarily in this motion, but it is on the report, and it’s with the information for tenants in the city page, the possibility of a city page that gives the rights, your rights as a tenant. I am very interested in that, and the reason that you have this written the way it is is because we’re trying to capture all that in a simple way. So I am hoping for some support on this, and hopefully we can bring some action to protect some tenants out there. Councillor McAllister.

Thank you, through the chair, and I appreciate Councillor Frayer and Councillor Trosto bringing this forward. My question speaks to the timeline that Councillor Trosto alluded to earlier. So my question and back to staff on this would be, I mean, I view this as a very high needs bylaw in terms of what I hear from the community. We’re trying to keep people housed.

This is something that we can do from the city side in terms of ensuring people can stay housed and not be evicted in bad faith. And I’m just wondering, I know in terms of the wording that’s been presented before us and Q2, is it not possible to bring the drought? I was just looking at our schedule in terms of CAHPS meetings in Q2, to have it back and do the PPM within Q2 and not drag this into Q3, is that feasible? ‘Cause I honestly think this is something that we really do need to prioritize.

I understand in terms of the workload and what everyone has right now, but I really think this is something we need to prioritize. So I’m just looking to staff to see if this is something we can move up. Mr. Catolek recognizing that staff can’t implement staff until council in April approves it, and then it’s always that council glitch before they can actually move forward with the work that committee directed.

Through the chair, we also need to ensure that we can make all the deadlines for postings and things like that as well. So that’s what we’re just having conversation about. Mr. Catolek.

We would do our best to drop a by-law in Q2 and possibly have a PPM in Q2, but if we don’t follow procedures that will allow for adequate community comments, then this by-law, ‘cause it’s not a simple by-law amendment, it’s a new by-law, could be fatal if there was a application to quash the by-law in the courts. Councilor McAllister. Thank you, through the chair. Could you then offer me some insight in terms of the process?

What would be deemed adequate in terms of a timeline for community feedback? How much time would you need once we have the by-law and then the PPM and then be able to enact this? Through the chair, we could have a public participation meeting where we dropped the by-law the Wednesday before. We would recommend yet another public participation meeting because the public is not giving adequate time nor are we presenting it to our council, a draft by-law to have a public participation meeting.

So that actually could lengthen the process of having two PPMs where we could only have one. But we, this is the most important item on our to-do list from a policy perspective in municipal compliance. You know, it’s higher than, you know, natural lawns, it’s higher than our vehicle by-law. All those things are important, but this is the top item that we’re working on this year.

But we wanna do it right, and we have experience in applications to quash by-laws. And we’ve been very successful in the courts because we have followed a public process where the community has had adequate information and adequate opportunities to comment because this is not simple. There’s two sides of this issue. There’s a tenant side and the landlord side.

We don’t wanna stop renovations of apartments. We wanna stop unfair renovations. Thank you for those comments, Councillor McAllister. Yes, thank you and through you.

And I do appreciate that in terms of prioritization and to your last point there. I mean, absolutely we want there to be renovations when they’re done properly, but it is going after those bad actors. And really that’s at the heart of what we’re trying to do here. ‘Cause I view this as part of our, you know, in terms of one of our strategic goals, right?

Like we want to obviously build new housing, but we also wanna keep people housed as best as we can. And I think this is a mechanism from the city perspective that we can utilize to help folks. So here what you’re saying, I think it’s tough because we hear that the need for market constituents. Obviously we’d like to expedite this as much as possible, but we also recognize that we need to have something that will hold up to those core challenges.

So recognizing that, I would just like then, I know you just spoke to it, but I just wanna get clear in terms of like, what is the shortest timeline you would anticipate but would also afford us the strongest in terms of a legal challenge. Like, I know we’re always so focused on quarters when we do our reports, but you would anticipate, I’m guessing from your previous comments that we would need at least going into two quarters really from the sounds of it, thank you. Thank you, I’ll allow staff to reply, noting that we already heard it as a priority for them. It legally takes as long as they want, if we want this to be solid, and it’s always up to council direction as a whole versus committee, Mr.

Mathers. Through the chair, what I’m gonna suggest is that we actually lay that out and provide that before council, so you can see what the steps are moving forward. We of course wanna ensure the due process, but also expedite it as quickly as we can. So it is that balanced, we’ll provide that to you before council.

Thank you, Councillor McAllister. Thank you, and I’m not trying to belabor this point, but I just recognize in terms of the importance of this, and I appreciate that from a compliance perspective, this is top of your list, so thank you for that. I think it’s just food for thought then for my colleagues. I know this how obviously we go before council, but I think really it’s keeping eyes on the timeline with this because the longer we wait, obviously more will happen in that interim period, right?

I know we need to do this right. I know from what I saw with Hamilton, obviously this was a contentious topic, that is with anything we need to do, or due diligence, we need to have that public participation. But I think just to my colleagues, I would recommend we all just keep eyes on this and ensure that we really try to move this forward as quickly as possible. And I thank staff for their hard work on this ‘cause I know the community is really asking for it, so thank you for all the work on this.

Thank you, I had Deputy Mayor Lewis next. Thank you, Madam Chair. So if I’m incorrect in this information, I’m sure that you’ll correct me ‘cause you were with me through the last term of council, but to the best of my knowledge, I’m probably the only Councillor who’s brought forward a brand new by-law from start to finish in the last term of council around tow truck licensing. And folks, I want you to know, that took three and a quarter years.

So to have this is originating out of a motion that myself and Councillor Cuddy and the Mayor brought forward in January, here we are not quite through March, and we’ve already got our first report back. So at the speed of government, we are moving at light speed on this one, in my opinion. And I do want to thank Mr. Lang and Mr.

Collek for the time that you took to speak with Councillor Cuddy and myself as well in consulting. And I know that Councillor Cuddy attended one of the meetings with another municipality. We appreciated that opportunity to provide some feedback too. Absolutely, we want to get this right.

We don’t want this to fail. So I think we do need to be cautious about pinning exact timelines on things. That said, I’m also mindful of the fact that when we have public participation meetings, then there are often desires to tinker with what’s before us. And so when we talk about two public participation meetings, potentially delaying things, I do wonder through you, Madam Chair, if a PPM for some preliminary feedback could not be aligned with the return of a draft by-law at the end of Q2.

And then from that, Council could provide any preliminary direction that it wished staff to take before it brought back a final version. Then when that final version comes back, there could be one more public engagement. I’m just thinking about rather than a separate meeting for a public participation meeting on its own, could we not have two public participation meetings that aligned with the draft by-law and then a final by-law direction? And perhaps if that condenses the timeframe, even just by a committee cycle or two to align them, because what I would like to avoid is a draft by-law, and then some ideas by Councillors to modify it a little bit, and then a PPM, and then some more ideas to modify it a little bit, because each time we send it back, we then have to allow one more public participation before we finalize things.

So I’m just trying to avoid getting into three or four referrals back on this, because I would like to see this at least as a by-law, even if we need more runway to actually enact it, I’d like to see the by-law in place in 2024. So if staff could provide a little bit of thought on the timeline there? Certainly, and recognizing as well that staff said that when the draft by-law come out with the CAHPS agenda, people would only have a few days notice anyways for the PPM staff. Yes, through the chair, we’ll take all of those comments under consideration, and we will report out to council on whenever the council meet April 7th or 4th, and come up with a plan, but that’s very possible, but that would be two public participation meetings, not the first time that that’s happened.

I’ll clarify, as April 2nd, is the council meeting? April 4th was the council meeting last year, and my calendar was wrong in my office. So it’s time it changed, and it’s April 2nd. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I appreciate that staff will let us know by council and get some updates on that, ‘cause I think it would be helpful, because I really do mean what I said. I want to avoid two, three, four referrals back to tweak things here and there. I would like to get this done this year in terms of a by-law.

I will say I think that the Hamilton by-law provides a great template, but there are some things in there that I think do need to be addressed from a London perspective. I do wonder, given the motion that’s on the floor right now, if Q2, just ‘cause I’m cautious about muddying the waters too much, although I want this information, recognizing that the draft would be in Q2, and that licensing fees and staffing costs and those kind of things could fluctuate, depending on any changes that are made to a draft by-law. Is it within the realm of staff’s ability to provide us at least some high-level estimates on staffing implications and licensing fees with that preliminary draft, or is that something that’s gonna take more time? Staff?

Through the chair, our preference for ultimate flexibility would be if the motion just stopped at the end of the word relocation, and that we heard committee loud and clear today, and we would, between today and council, come up with a road plan of reporting back. Certainly, it’s very possible that we hold more than one PPM, and if it stopped that, that would be less specific and allow for flexibility for staff to come up with a road plan for this. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I’ll have to leave that to members of the committee since I’m not a voting member of the committee, so I can’t amend that.

But I do think that we wanna allow flexibility for you to get back to us in this timely manner possible. I appreciate the commitment to give us a calendar or a timeline map to where this will land when this comes before us at council. Again, I’m gonna echo the comments that we heard from Councillor Trussow. Very thorough report, lots of good information in here.

Appreciate the work that went into it, and how quickly you were able to turn this around. Again, I wanna get this done, but I wanna get it done right. You know, things like the $750 permit fee, I’m not sure if that’s the right level for London, which would be a copy right out of the Hamilton By-law. Although I do like where the financial penalties are, ‘cause I think that you’ve gotta have the accountability on that for bad faith actors.

I do appreciate also that you’re moving this forward, recognizing that there’s other pieces in the council resolution that are gonna take a little more time around the existing residential rental unit licensing structure and how that looks. I’m okay waiting for that piece. I think we tackle this piece first on the renovations, then we can jump in and deal with some of the other pieces right at the end 12th. And things like that around our residential rental unit licensing, which I know continues to be a challenge for some folks, I know I sent constituent, the enforcement@london.ca email again this morning.

So there’s probably another file coming your way, but we’ll leave that in your hands for now, and I’ll just wrap up with that. Thank you, looking to see if the dinner speakers for a first turn before I start second round. Okay, Councillor Ferri, I know you’re gonna want second to speak again, so if you wanna go ahead, I’m also looking for a first turn. So, okay, so you can take the chair if I can do first, and please time me.

Thank you, Chair, Councillor Colosa. I have the chair and you have five minutes. Okay, thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

Several concerns as we move through this. With the original, with the motion that’s on the floor now, my concern would be if it’s all encompassing enough and sufficient to incorporate everything that staff wants to do, recognizing in the past, we’ve made changes at committee, and then what we get back isn’t quite all that staff would normally have done, ‘cause we accidentally excluded something from the purview that would otherwise have been included. Also hearing from various residents and not questioning the importance of this and absolutely wanting to expedite it as much as possible. My concern is that if sufficient time isn’t gone, given to go through the process that needs to be laid out for this, for the PPM, hiring the staff complement, and looking at what needs to be done, that as we know other municipalities are looking at pushing a by-law similar, and no doubt, there will be people out there looking for a legal challenge that I wouldn’t ever want to be that London rush things too much, didn’t do our full deal diligence, and we’re the thread that starts unraveling the good work that advocacy groups are trying to do across the whole province, that we need to get our things right, and it might take an extra month or two, but staff needs, in my opinion, to feel that they have that time, versus timelines that we’ve picked, realize we still want things as quickly as possible.

So those are my concerns with it. I do have concerns with the wording as it is currently before us. As budget chair, I’m always gonna have other concerns with sources of financing, cost, recovery, and how that’s gonna look, and definitely not looking to make money off of this, but looking ideally that, is there a way that this model covers it? I would just hate to put in 800,000 or million dollars into this, while there’s people desperate for that money, also, for housing that we’re not, that we can balance those needs of what people need.

So I will leave my comments there, and I will return the chair to the presiding officer. Thank you, Council Palosa. That was just over two minutes. I will yield the chair back to you.

Thank you, and Councilor Faire, you were at three minutes of your previous speaking time, but is committee grows to have an extension, but just to let you know where you’re at. Thank you, Chair. So I do obviously wanna give, provide sufficient time to staff, and practice our due diligence. I hear the concerns of the committee, and I have the same concerns as well.

I would also say, with respect to people who are losing their housing right now, if we were to give them that answer, they probably would be like, well, I’m out tomorrow, and it doesn’t necessarily help, but at the same time, I understand kind of where we are, so I do wanna give that sufficient time. So I don’t know how that’s gonna look, but I can see that there’s already some ideas with how the motion has been written. I wanna go back to the possibility of one PPM, or two PPMs in just that discussion, ‘cause I do know that this report is just speaking to part A of the original motion, the original council resolution from January 2024. So we are gonna have some other sections of that, that I guess wouldn’t necessarily be tied into this directly, but they are all related.

How would the timing for this PPM with the motion like this, and or the possibility of several PPMs, work with the other portions that we see from that council resolution? Mr. Tullick. Through the Chair, the direction of council was to report back with options by the end of Q3 of this year, recognizing that there was I think three motions as a result of the discussion in January based on the original motion.

So we recognize that the issue of renovations is top of mind, that’s why we separated it out. So we’re committed to reporting back on the rental licensing expansion by the end of Q3, but I would recommend a separate public participation meeting on that because the issue is separate. And no doubt, based on our past experience, expect landlords to come out to say that it’s not required, expect tenants to come out to say that it absolutely is required. So my preference would be from an efficiency perspective to separate the two or three motions, focus on renovations, move that along, and we will, we’re committed to reporting back on the other motions at the end of Q3.

Councillor. Okay, thank you for that, thank you Chair. Thank you for that. That was kind of my thoughts also.

I just wanted to be sure that they should be separate. So looking to committee, I don’t wanna constrict ourselves with possible language that’s not broad enough to capture what we’re looking for to give staff, just the direction that you need. So I still see that I guess I don’t have a seconder on this motion yet. Sorry, Councillor Trove says second to you.

Okay, so with respect to, I guess, the timing, like I would be amenable to change that. I do wanna see it as soon as possible because I don’t wanna see people being rented or getting bad faith in their teens and n12s, serve to them. So I guess I would look at committee and I would be amenable to kind of change the language to make it work and give us the time that we need, but I also considering that. Councillor Ferrer, if it helps, I believe Mr.

Catolix’s ease of direction was just that it would read that the civic administration be directed to report back regarding a renovation license in relocation. And I believe that’s where he put the period for the stop. I do want that renovation license and relocation language in there. So the fact that you have that in there, I’m good with that.

So I will look to my seconder to see if there’s any comments the seconder would like to put on this. It feels as if we’re going around in circles a little bit and I think that’s okay. I mean, I want staff to feel comfortable with what we’re directing you to do. And I think you’ve got a very clear message today that we are very serious about getting this in effect.

So if it’s okay with you, it’s okay with me. I just want to say if there are any owners out there who think that they’re going to benefit by serving these notices before this by-law comes into effect, they’re making a big mistake. And I hope that this doesn’t become a situation where people try to get in with their notices before the by-law is passed. Because I think we can have language in the by-law saying that even if the notice was served, we can fix that.

So please don’t think that you’ll be able to frustrate the purpose of this by-law by sending out mass notices before it becomes effective. That is not going to work. With that, I think I’m am amenable. Okay, if you would just like to refresh that’s being uploaded into eScribe.

I took that as a, I know it was on the floor, looking to see if anyone on committee wouldn’t allow this in which case we had to start voting down things and redoing things. Okay, I see that word. Councillor Ferra. Oh, Councillor Trauss, have your mics on.

Thank you, Chair. Striking everything out after that, the way this looks looks good to me, as long as it works. And I just want to go back, if I can, if I can, Chair. Quick question to Mr.

Catolek from the, or Mr. Mathers, or whoever can answer this, from what Councillor Trauss had just pointed out. Would this by-law be able to be applied retroactively, considering of the comments that Councillor just made, and knowing that there’s a potential that we might get an influx of N13s being served because they know this by-laws coming? To staff and/or to legal, or if you need a sidebar, we will wait a moment.

Through the Chair, that’s a bit of a hypothetical question which we don’t have an answer for today. Thank you. I’ll ask it another day then, I’ll get back to you on that. Thank you.

Okay, realizing that this is, would be the recommendation for committee, and Council still has time to get the timeline layout from staff, anything that arises between now and then. Currently, my speaker’s list is empty, and I’d be looking to call the question unless there was something further of passing this, or not passing this, voting on it, not tampering with what you should do. Okay, seeing none, I have the mover of Councillor Ferrer noted, seconder is Councillor Trauss out. Call on the question.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, that would move us onto the business lacing bylaw and fireworks bylaw amendments. Looking to staff if you want to give a brief overview on this one, as it has encompassed some of the changes that you heard from Council and committee prior. Thank you, and through the Chair, on August 29th of last year, Municipal Council directed us to amend the fireworks bylaw, the business’s licensing bylaw, to allow for consumer fireworks on four specific days of the year.

Victoria Day, Canada Day, Diwali, and the Lunar New Year, as well as regulate the sale of consumer fireworks. So speaking on behalf of the fireworks bylaw amendment, PW11, we’ve made the following amended changes to the fireworks bylaw. We’ve done some general housekeeping to strengthen the definitions, so it’s very clear to the public. We’ve added new definitions, or understanding of the new words, Diwali, licensed manager, and Lunar New Year.

So this means that the licensed manager will annually determine the dates for Diwali and the Lunar New Year, and we will publish these dates annually on the city’s website. We’ve also made amendments with respect to the days and the times that residents may discharge consumer or backyard fireworks. So they can discharge these on those four days. Victoria Day, Canada Day, Diwali, and the Lunar New Year only, and they can discharge them only between dusk and 11 p.m.

And then I’ll turn it over to Mr. Catolek, who has made amendments with respect to the sale of consumer fireworks. Mr. Catolek?

Thank you. We currently enforce the sale of consumer fireworks through our business licensing bylaw. However, we only enforce for a pop-up sales, so those are the tents that you see up a couple times a year. This amendment focuses on all sales of consumer fireworks.

So in all premises, it also introduces a fee, an annual fee for the sale of consumer fireworks at all premises. It also introduces administrative monetary penalties for non-compliance with this new category within the business licensing bylaw. Thank you, Ms. Smith.

I believe there’s someone here from fire as well if you would like to introduce them. As I know, and if they would like to make an opening comment as someone has already posed a question in advance of looking to see if fire can, as we do with the outdoor fire band, if the environment’s correct, environmentally that we just don’t set them off. Thank you, and through the chair, I have with me Deputy Chief Heptich. He is the Deputy Chief of Fire Prevention and Education, and this bylaw sits in his area, so he’d be happy to speak about the proposed additional amendment to the bylaw that was just circulated to talk to what would we do in times of drought or extreme heat.

Deputy Chief, welcome. Thank you, and through the chair, in the scenario where we would receive a display fireworks permit, which means a large show. Under, as the authority having jurisdiction, as per the National Resources Canada display fireworks manual, we would have the ability to not approve the permit based on an unsafe site for the discharge. Also, we would be able to, for example, if there is every fireworks permit or display permit that comes through has a rain date, we may be able to offer a drought date as well.

However, under the display fireworks manual, and as the authority having jurisdiction, we would be able to simply not approve that permit for a discharge of display fireworks. Thank you for that, and welcome. So within staff’s report, there’s a section, a recommendation of A, B, and C, looking to committee to see if someone has a motion they would like to move, and then comments or questions if you need to ask them in advance, as this item has been pulled. I will also note that we have a delegation request, and they are with us via Zoom, and they are here if we’d like to hear it.

Mr. Catolic, would anything in here normally trigger a PPM following these changes? No, okay. So it would be appropriate if you do want to hear from the delegation who is with us that you would do that today as well.

So looking to committee to see how verified with the clerk that the delegation is with us, if we’d like to hear them at this time before we start our Q&A. So I have a mover to accept that delegation and Councillor Trousow. I will second it, and it is just the one delegation with us today. So that’s an E-scribe if you want to refresh, and then call in the question.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. I will just let technology allow them, okay. So perfect, welcome, we can see you. You were just muted at the moment, and you have up to five minutes, and welcome back.

Hello, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I am admittedly struggling with my mental health today, so I’m going to try to be brief. I’m speaking on behalf of individuals with disabilities, individuals who are impoverished, and who I feel have been given little recognition when it comes to these changes in the fireworks by-law. Specifically, there’s still been no work done to recognize the issues in the complaint system.

I would like to ask Councillors to please review the letter that I submitted where I discuss that individuals who are too impoverished to afford phone plans simply cannot use the complaint system set up by City Hall right now. But there are many people in that position who have internet connections through their phones, and so if there was some form of button added to service, the service London portal, specifically for noise complaints. This does relate to fireworks though, because fireworks are a type of noise complaint that always come after hours. And so even in other situations where people cannot access, phone lines or cannot access the complaint line, a button will make it much more accessible for these individuals.

I had a lot of other points, but my mind is not really working well with my mental health struggles. I wanna ask that individuals please read the letters from D. Ronson and from B. Samuels.

They made very strong points about how licensing is not being properly addressed. There’s a lot of unanswered questions. This by-law really needs to go back and have deeper consideration in terms of how they’re regulating this licensing, and ensuring that sellers are following these by-laws and caring about what they’re selling that it falls within the by-laws and that people are not violating them. I also just wanna note that it feels really controversial and hypocritical to hear so much talk about a PPM after just being at a PPM where counselors outright ignored what we said.

The PPM for this particular matter, a lot of individuals with disabilities came out saying that they have serious problems with people violating this by-law and nothing was done to address the complaints. Nothing was done to address the complaint system. A staff have said they’re concerned about triaging, but the fact of the matter is even if people call during the day, you still have to triage then. So why shouldn’t you also triage at night as well with a button on the service site?

It’s really frustrating to have counselors like Stevenson say that they think we should push this by-law for fireworks forward because so many people came forward saying that they wanted it at the PPM. But then to say that she doesn’t think we should listen to a single word about sharing some of the funding for the police with other services because only— - Sorry, I’m on it. Yeah, so— - No, that’s an important point. It’s about the last PPM.

Yeah, and this is this PPM, you’re granted delegate. I’ve paused your time. - I understand. I understand.

And so I’m just saying this is about people with disabilities not being listened to. This button will help address that. Counselors need to hear that people with disabilities are not being heard. I’m sorry that I could not articulate my entire letter.

I please ask again that counselors take some time to read it. Thank you for your time. Thank you for being with us today, Ms. Amidello.

I will note that their correspondence is on the added agenda on page 88. And they also reference D. Ronson’s and B. Samuels, which appear on page 90 and 92 of your agenda.

That concludes the delegations that I requested to speak before us today. The staff have also been here to note their comments. I will return to my speakers list. And I have Councilor Trozau first.

And then I will look for further speakers with Councilor Pribble and others. I would like to make the observation through the chair with respect to public participation meetings that the addition of the fourth fireworks day was not the subject of a public participation meeting. Public participation meeting that we had was about option A or option B. And it was very clear that we were talking about adding Diwali.

The motion to add Lunar New Year came up afterwards. There was no public participation meeting on that. Now, what I wanna talk about is, first of all, I can’t support this motion. And I’m going to continue to oppose this.

And I will be voting against the motion that’s on the floor. And I will urge other Councillors to do so. However, should this come to Council, I think what’s particularly deficient in the staff report is the discussion of licensing. Because there was a lot of discussion about licensing at the last meeting.

And I don’t believe that this report addresses licensing questions. So I’m not sure procedurally whether it would be contrary to introduce a motion saying that the matter be referred to staff for further work on licensing issues. And I have a list of the licensing issues that I think need to be discussed. Or whether procedurally it would be better to vote down the motion.

And if the motion is voted down, then I could put another motion on the floor. I’m not sure what to do here. But the work on licensing issues really, really needs to be done. I don’t think it’s been done.

And should I at this point say what I think those are, or should I hold that? As you don’t know if it’s going to pass or fail, and you don’t know how that vote’s going to go at Council, I would recommend that if you have licensing questions and issues you’d like to raise, that this committee is the correct place to raise them. And we’re going to ask staff to identify if they’ve actually been addressed in the report somehow. And why or why not?

Well, first of all, I don’t think there was a discussion through the chair about the— it just assumed it would be five days. And I’d like to suggest that if we’re going to allow four times a year, we might want to consider limiting that to three. And I think some more analysis about that is needed. Second, I would like to have it clarified that the licensing fee is applied on a per day and a per vending site area.

It’s not clear to me in the report whether the licensing fee is one vendor across the city or per site. I think it should be per site. OK, so I’ve just asked you to hold there. Mr.

Catola and team, a lot of these questions are coming your way. Would you like to hear the list of questions first and then a bulk answer? Or would you prefer one question, one answer? Just one question, one answer?

OK, so Councillor has already mentioned some things there. As always, staff, time doesn’t count towards a Councillor’s speaking time. So I will go to staff for those questions that you’ve heard. Then Councillors has a printed copy just for as they read the questions, you have a chance to see them.

So we’ll just wait for a moment and then we’ll resume. Chair, would you like me to answer the two questions posed or this list that I just received? Your preference, just as we do have people watching and it’s going to be recorded for people. So if you just say I’m answering this question or be the question, then answer it just to help with the ease of conversation of where we’re at.

So the first question is limiting the allowable days of firework sales to three. My answer to that is we were following up on the direction of Council. And that’s why the report is five. The question on applying a licensing fee on per day and preventing site.

My answer to that is the business licensing by-law allows for a fee for recovery of costs. There is a nexus within the business licensing by-law on the size of the fee. And as per all other premises that we license, I use food shops as an example. It is per location.

So if a convenience store, corporate convenience store wants to sell fireworks and I have five convenience stores in London, it’ll be five licenses. The third question is requiring a preventing inspection of all vending sites. My answer to that is we currently do that together with fire prevention on pop-up sales and we will continue to do that. Fourth question is specifying the content of the notice to be given to all purchasers.

My answer to that is that is in the by-law and administrative regulation. And the notice will be prepared. We currently have a notice. We’ll have to amend it.

It’ll be prepared in conjunction with our partners at fire prevention. The next question is limiting the number of vending sites permitted in the city. My answer to that is to the best of my knowledge, the only premises that we can limit the number of sites in accordance with the municipal act or adult entertainment. I’m not aware of limiting the number of sales sites for any other type of business premise.

And the last question is reviewing the licensing fees and administrative penalties. We are open to council to do that review. However, it would be premature to do a review without having a complete season of the by-law in force and effect. Thank you, Councillor Travsau, or would you like me to go to my next speaker?

Okay, Councillor Ferri, you’re next in the list. Thank you, Chair, through you. The question about the limiting of the number of sites to the city, would we be able to limit the amount of licenses issued? Chair, we would have to confirm that with our legal colleagues.

Councillor Ferri? Okay, thank you. And with going back to the discussion about the days of sale from five to three, that did, I just want to confirm, that was from a council direction. There is discretion on changing if council or committee and council agree from the five days of sale to the three days of sale before the fireworks day.

Staff? Through the Chair, that’s a direction of council. And I defer to the clerks if there was a change in those number of days, whether you need two thirds vote. Clerks don’t have an answer at this moment.

I think it’s normally more of the question of, if it’s been within that one year timeframe since we made that discussion for it to come back to committee and through council. If I hear something contrary, or when I do hear from the clerks, I will let you know. Any other questions in the meantime? No questions in the meantime, I’ll wait for that one.

Okay, so we’re gonna wait on that one. The clerks are clerking. I will go back to my second speaker, who now inadvertently become my third speaker, Councillor Ferri, and then Councillor McAllister. Thank you, Mr.

Chair, to the staff. Four questions, the first one is, I know you’re proposing this report, but what specific improvements will be there from the business licensing, from the perspective of business licensing? Staff? Through the Chair, the greatest improvement would be that we would be licensing all premises within London that sell fireworks.

Currently, we only license pop-up sales, but I also need to advise a committee that the reality of retail these days is that you can purchase fireworks already, the internet 24/7. Councillor Pribble. Thank you, and the second question, in terms of the operational plans for enforcement of fireworks, sales will include additional initiatives, activities. Staff?

Through the Chair, we will follow a current protocol that we currently do, which includes also playing close attempts of purchases. Councillor Pribble, thank you. And we are proposing that each merchant will have to provide information to the customers. This information, are we, as a city, going to provide it to the merchants, to the businesses?

Mr. Catolic. Yes, we currently do now for pop-up sales. The way we plan to do it is put the information online so that they can print it off themselves.

Councillor Pribble. Thank you, and the last question, as the sales season is coming up very shortly, what will the procedure look like for this year in terms of the time-wise and in terms of application-wise? To staff? We will be ready for a Victoria Day weekend.

We anticipate the reality is there will be some vendors that may not be knowledgeable of this new amendment, but they will be very knowledgeable for Canada Day. Councillor, thank you very much, no more questions. Thank you. Councillor McAllister.

Thank you, through the Chair. I was wondering to staff, if I can follow up on the point that was made, and I’ve heard this from others in terms of the complaints and enforcement. ‘Cause I find this, it’s a tough topic anyways, because really, all the kind of feel a little bit defeated, but it’s just one of those things where, if you report it typically, it’s done by the time you guys get there, right? It’s just the reality of fireworks, right?

But I like the idea of having some kind of reporting mechanism in terms of whether we do that through service London, but I would just like to see maybe more data in terms of when fireworks are being set off, right? ‘Cause it’s kind of capturing that point in time because we have time limits in terms of when you can set them off, but if I get a call, or if I get an email, if somebody complaining, it doesn’t really have any sort of an impact, because by the time I get to you guys, it’s pretty much done anyways. But if people can report this through the city, we might be able to get a better idea of parts of the city and the times these are things are happening, because right now, I just think we’ve had this missing gap in terms of the data to be able to enforce properly. Staff?

Through the Chair, an improvement that we’re going to implement this year is to copy a best practice that we use for barking dogs, because this is very similar. You get a complaint about a barking dog. By the time you get there, the dog’s in the house. You get a complaint about a firework.

By the time you find it, it’s over with. So we’re gonna use the same protocol where residents will be able to fill out a log. If their neighbors are setting out fireworks three, four days in a row, we will look at that evidence and lay amps as appropriate. Councilor?

Thank you, through the Chair. Yeah, ‘cause I’m just wondering, I feel like if we can get that point in time data, it’ll give enforcement a better idea of the neighborhoods or like the worst offenders, right? Like you were saying with the dogs, right? It’s the same kind of thing with fireworks.

I typically always get it from the same areas and I’m like, well, I know where my hotspots are. But I just think that that would be valuable data for bylaw enforcement. Just in terms of, I just wanted to make some more general comments on this one. I mean, when this first came before us, I feel like we had a sufficient number of days.

I understood the arguments that were being made in terms of, you know, the culture. But at the same time, I think festivities can evolve. I think there are other ways of having lights. I’ve seen in other countries, they have drones.

Technologies moved forward. There are some countries that have outright banned fireworks. I know that wasn’t something that my colleagues agreed to. I think the general consensus was people want them to have them.

But I do think, to the point we heard earlier too, that there are concerns in the community in terms of fireworks. And even to my comments on enforcement, it’s one of those things where we can put whatever restrictions we want in place. But I mean, I think even if we outlawed them, people would still set them off, which is an unfortunate reality. So I’m gonna be grudgingly in favor of this.

I appreciate the work the staff have done in terms of trying to reduce the days for sale, in terms of the licensing. I think that those are all beneficial. I would like to actually have these separated out, because I’m still not in favor of increasing the days. So I would like to vote on each section separately, please.

Thank you. Councilor McAllister, are you willing to put staff recommendation on the floor? A through ABC? We will certainly call them separate.

And then committees welcome to vote them down. Like I still need it though, for process wise, when it gets to council to be in a format that people can easily pull apart and vote on as they want. And Councilor Ferra, we do not have an answer from the clerks yet, but they are still looking back to see when that last meeting was that we did that change and what that effect would be. I’ll put the staff recommendation on the floor.

But I’d like them separated. Okay, I’ll second it. So that’s ABC, there’s D, sorry, there’s also a D as there was revised. It’s on your added on page 83, 82, I was wrong about April and what year we were in, but right against page 82.

Okay, so that’s moved and seconded. It will all be called separate when we’re there. So Councilor Ferra, your answer is that that five day was passed on August 29th. And a member who voted in the majority must make the motion.

And it needs to be approved by a majority of committee if we want to reduce it back down to the three. I don’t have the voting record though, who voted which way at this moment. And it could either be done here or at Council if someone wants to dig into that. I’ll go back to the comment I made about the fact that at least for the fourth event, Lunar New Year, there was not a public participation meeting on this.

And I’m wondering what the effect of that is. And further, as long as I have the floor. Sorry, so just because you called a point order and that’s procedurally something different and I don’t have my procedural bylaw with me. You could, yep.

I will take that that the chair didn’t acknowledge your question to be answered by staff. And I will get back to that in one moment as I still had Councilor Ferra. And I believe Councilor McAllister had wrapped up. Councilor McAllister, you were good.

You concluded your questions. Well, I just ran through the chair. I just recognized that Councilor Ferra was right. I had it backwards.

I thought we actually had reduced it, but you’re correct. We actually increased it. So yeah, I’d like to see that. Okay, so I will get to Councilor Trousa’s question in a minute as I just read out the clerk’s answer to Councilor Ferra’s question from earlier in this item.

Did you wanna speak to that now? Thanks, Chair, sure. I believe that I would not be one of the members that would be able to bring that for reconsideration. But it’s good that I have that information.

I did have some other questions. I just wanted to just quickly, I just wanted to wait for that one before I move on to the other ones, just two more. For the annual fee of $800, is there, I guess it’s kind of similar? Is there a discretion on that as well?

Was that also a similar type of change that has to be annual and it can’t be per allowable discharge day for fireworks to staff? Through the chair, when we look at recommending to Council fees for business licensing, there needs to be a nexus between the enforcement and administration and prosecution of the by-law. We looked at our current fees for the pop-up sales and we feel a fee of $800 is reasonable and defendable. Councilor, thank you for that.

So keeping the fee as it is for the year, is there a possibility to not charge it annually and charge it per allowable discharge day? So for instance, if a vendor, we’re only gonna be participating in selling fireworks. I don’t know if this would actually happen, but if they only wanted to sell fireworks or three out of the days allowable, would they be able, are we able to just charge per those three days rather than the full year stretch? To staff, also not sure how that affects what staff is trying to cover off to making up for revenue and staff.

So through the chair, the fee is for the entire year and from an efficiency perspective, then we would have to check whether they’re actually selling fireworks for the fourth, the day that’s permitted. So from a cost-effective position is to have it across the year, we will inspect together with the fire prevention and the fee is definitely defendable. Councilor? Okay, thank you, I get that.

That’s all the questions I have for now. Thank you, I will go back to Councilor Troso for the question he stated and I believe staff is ready with an answer. Yeah, and also I’m still not clear whether or not the 800 is per vendor citywide or per stand, because I thought I heard you say before that it was per stand. And if that’s the case, I’d like that clarified.

I’m also not clear procedurally where we are. Would this be the time since we’re separating the motion for me to add the referral back on these additional questions about licensing that have been raised? Or would that be contrary to voting on the recommendation to send to city council the by-law? Because if it’s the latter, where I would just suggest we vote down the by-law, if that’s the will of this committee and then take up these separate licensing issues.

I’ll do it the first question first. I believe staff said that the business licensing has per location. You got one per site and if a vendor had five sites, they had to buy five licenses, but just making sure that we heard that right. That’s correct.

On your second part of the question, it would need to be in motion form and a referral takes presence over what’s on the floor. I need your mic. In that case, I would like to make a motion to refer this matter back to staff for further work on licensing issues, including A, B, C, D, E and F as I specified before and I’ve given the chair that text and I could provide that electronically. Electronically would be beneficial because the clerk needs to drop that into E-Scribe and I also gave my printed copy back to you at your spot.

So that would be a referral. It would take priority over what’s on the floor now. It would also require a seconder. Councilor Faire, you’re willing to second the referral back to staff.

Okay. Who do I send this to? Do we need to use our email at these meetings? We’re just loading that into E-Scribe before we proceed.

Hey, if you would like to refresh E-Scribe, it’s there and it’s also up on the Greens behind us. Hey, I’ll be starting a speaker’s list at I would like to be on it. Councilor Faire, could you chair if I could speak and then time you as well? Yes, I can chair.

I have the chair and Councilor Palosas first on the speaker’s list. Thank you. I appreciate that this is a divided discussion. Council at committee and in our community, I believe staff have answered the question above.

My concern is, I won’t be voting for the referral back, but by the time this comes back, goes to staff, get some answers, come back, that it delays the implementation of the by-law with Victoria Day coming up and people would be scrambling then for Canada Day to understand the different processes and information going out to residents. And I know Canada Day is the main one in my ward as we have some great parks. I don’t want to name them and people will be encouraged to go to use them for these purposes, but they are, well, I will say the Southland County celebration does have why Oaks Park rented to do fireworks. So I would like to get the changes in place.

Don’t support the referral back. I would rather personally us deal with the changes before us and then at council and at committee, people can vote it down if they want, but just if the by-law does move forward then that it is updated and in place should it pass at council, that we’re in the best position possible should it pass. Those are my comments. Thank you, Councillor.

I can yield the chair back to you and I have Councillor McAllister next on the list. Perfect, I will start. You have about one minute and 40 seconds that you spoke to on that. Thank you.

I will start with Councillor McAllister and then build my speakers list out from there. I will also note as chair that we still have several other items and confidential sessions. Committee does not have an end time but at some point we will need a break. So Councillor McAllister.

Thank you and through the chair. And while I do appreciate the sentiment of the referral, to me it just feels like we’re filibustering the fireworks. I don’t, like I said earlier, like I didn’t want additional days. It’s not perfect, but I mean, I wasn’t on the winning side of this.

So I think at a certain point, we have to move on with this and to Councillor blows this point. We do need to also acknowledge that there are those days coming up. Regardless of what side of the debate you fall on this, I think we should just get on with it. So I won’t be supporting the referral because at this point, I don’t think that what staff will bring back to us will really add anything.

The issues that we had disagreements on, they didn’t have any real, like they had some support, but not enough to carry. So I just think this is delaying an inevitable decision that we just need to get on with. So hopefully we can vote on this today. Thank you.

Thank you. Looking to see if there’s further speakers. Hey, calling the question. Yeah, calling the question the amendment, that’s before us for the referral back.

That was moved by Councillor Travsau and seconded by Councillor Ferra as just showing in a scribe. Closing the vote, the motion fails two to three. Okay, that brings us back to the main motion that we were discussing prior. It’s an A through D.

I’m hoping that we had mostly discussed our concerns with it. It will be called separate. Councillor McAllister, just before we call them separate, did you want A through D each called individually or was there one in particular that you wanted to guide group any of them or? I believe it was a C which speaks to the four days.

I was the only one who wanted to vote on separate. Okay, currently my speaker’s list on this is exhausted. Part C is gonna appear first and then we’ll group A, B, and D together. Yeah, I still think there are.

I still think there are policy issues. I’d like to have them all called separate. I’d be not voting for any of them. But then you would just vote no on C and no on A, B, and D when they’re grouped.

Yeah, but the votes might be different. And in particular, I’m requesting— Okay, we’re calling on separate. Okay, so I’m about to open on A, Councillor McAllister. Are you still finding the same mover and seconder on all of them regards of how one votes?

You’re always welcome to vote separate even if you moved or seconded something. Okay, Councillor McAllister. A is open. Councillor Trossal.

Fosing the vote, the motion carries three to two. Calling B, part B. Fosing the vote, the motion carries three to two. Calling part C, Councillor McAllister, flagging this one for you.

Motion fails two to three. Okay, and just preparing to call part T. Just a point of order for a second. Yep.

On my E scribe, I have part C as passing three to two. The clerk’s screen is showing motion to approve part C failed two to three. Do you mind checking this out? ‘Cause I do have it here on my screen and I would hate to have a go away before.

Hit refresh, mine’s showing correct. Calling part D. Always rather be called in the moment than have to reconsider and revisit something. So thank you.

Fosing the vote, the motion carries three to two. Hey, that dispenses with item 2.6. That leads us with from consent 2.7, which would be the Parks and Rec Master annual plan report. I’m hoping the discussion on this one will be more brief.

You have a motion for. Okay, so I’m gonna try and get through this one before we go on like just a 10 minute break. So Parks and Rec Master annual report, there’s a brief overview from staff. So Ms.

Smith for that and then we will commence. Thank you and through the chair, we’re pleased to support present to you our third annual Parks and Recreation Master Plan report. It highlights our COVID recovery data points to date and it showcases some accomplishments in 2023 and then lays out our priorities for 2024. It’s also an opportunity to serve as a great vehicle to send out our sincerest thanks and appreciation to thousands of staff who support the work every day, our community partners and the participants themselves.

So last year we saw over 97,000 participants experience recreation programs, almost 200,000 swim and learn how to swim in our aquatic programs, 120,000 rounds of golf and almost 40,000 hours allocated to our sports groups who access all of our city outdoor sports fields. When total we had over 3 million visits to all of our recreation and sport facilities. Staff also when installed an urban park, the Thompson Ravine built tennis courts at Roundtree, Glenworth and Oak Ridge Optimus Park and a garden of reflection at the Hyde Park Village Green. In addition, 2024 represents our fifth year and as we noted in the report, we will be completing more formal updates every five years where some recommendations may be revised due to changes in participation trends, demographics, growth patterns and municipal best practices.

So you will see this work commence in the coming months and report back to you. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll note that the current staff recommendation is just that this information be received.

So no, Councilor Trossa had some questions but at some point, are you moving receipt of it or are you going to the speakers this year? Okay. So you know, I’d normally like to keep things tight. So I’ll go to Councilor Trossa.

I’ll recognize you always receive the report and then add other things into it. Yes, I’m happy to receive the report. The report is the report and I’m not going to report to change it here. What I would like to do though is ask about additional items that can be included in future reports.

And if appropriate, I will make a motion to include those. The first is whether it would be useful to include a review of the security deposits that are being charged to private groups. And I’m not talking about somebody who wants to have a picnic at one of the tables. I’m talking about taking over the entire park for a commercial operation.

The example of that would be rock the park. My view is that the security deposit should be reviewed and it should be increased because there are just too many complaints about the condition that the park is left after something like rock the park. My second, or should we just do one at a time? Ms.

Smith? Sorry, that was me not sharing. Well, maybe it was both of us not sharing our mic. Thank you.

And through the chair, I appreciate the question and you’re going to see this year a review of our special events policy. So we will be bringing back our revised and then proposed new special events policy to city council for a review. And additionally this year, we’re also reviewing all our user fees. And so that would be included under that.

And at that time, we’re reviewing our fees this year in hopes of maybe making some changes to user fees in 2025. And that report would come. Yeah, just was that report coming later in 2024? Sorry, thank you and through the chair.

Good question. That special events policy are proposed update to the special events policy will probably be coming in the fall of this year. Councilor Trevso. Thank you, that answers that question.

My next question is having something in the master plan that mandates, mandates without exception. The provision of water where there is a public, where there is a public event, particularly one that is otherwise close to the public. This is an issue that has come up quite a bit and it’s something I’ve expressed concern about. Ms.

Smith, I believe that would be the third stations and that is contained in your report for special events coming up. Yes, thank you through the chair. You will see that revised policy and our special events policy coming this year. Councilor?

So far it’s not necessary for me to make an amendment because we’ll be seeing the report before that. My final question is more general and that has thought been given to the nature of the uses that happen in the parks. We tend to use Harris Park for the large public events and I’m wondering are there other parks in the city that could be just as appropriate, if not more appropriate in terms of the location, the accessibility, the parking for these large-scale events, which is not just rock the park, but also hate to say it after the last point, but fireworks displaced. Thank you and through the chair.

I’ll respond briefly and then maybe turn it over to Mr. Yeoman if you want to speak to it too, but that again is part a very good question as part of our special events policy. We are looking at different opportunities in parks is correct to share what depending on the size of events, what parks have the amenities to support that beyond the current parks that we use, which is in particular Victoria Park and Harris Park. Councilor?

Has a traffic study been done talking about the implications of having such a large event in a park that has very limited vehicular access compared to other parks. Ms. Smith? Through the chair, I’m not aware of it.

I’m not sure if Mr. Yeoman or Ms. Cher is. Mr.

Yeoman? Yes, thank you. Through you, Madam Chair. So I’m not aware of a study that’s recent.

There probably was one at one time. In relation to your previous question, counselor, we will be looking at our park typologies and the nature and character of our parks with the upcoming update to the master plan, something we’re looking forward to, and I’m sure this is something that we’ll be discussing as part of the community consultations as well. Councilor? And finally, my last question goes to public accessibility of documents pertaining to park use.

I would like to see a copy of, and again, I’m not talking about a family having an anniversary thing in a park renting a table. I’m not interested in that. I’m interested in the larger commercial operations, and I do think there should be public access through the contracts between, for example, the city of London and the Rock the Park promoters. And in the past, it’s been suggested to me that that would be privileged, and I could not get them.

Could you help me with that? To staff, or to legal of contracts and privilege or public information once it comes into our realm in PEPPA. Thank you. Sorry, thank you, I’m through the chair.

That’s something I’d have to talk to legal about, and I’d be happy to respond via email to the counselor and have something in time for our city council meeting. Councilor? That’s a very reasonable response for the council meeting. I think the question of public accessibility to these should be judged by the criteria of what’s in M-FIPPA, and if a document would be producible under M-FIPPA, there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be given to a counselor, presumably an open session.

So thank you all, I’ll wait for that. I think the only thing that I might want to make a motion about, and if this is not feasible, just tell me, is a traffic study. ‘Cause I am very concerned about the traffic that happens in and around Harris Park when there’s a large event there. Is this something that the traffic department could reasonably look at as a study?

Through you, Madam Chair, the catchment area for traffic study that nature would exceed our own in-house resources to deliver, we would have to hire a consultant to take basically a court-on-count around all of the bus routes, walking, transit, and driving routes for major events. So within current budgets and current resources, we would be unable to do that right now. Councilor? Would it be keeping putting costs aside?

Would it be in keeping with public safety considerations to have that type of study before we engage any further, any further, large events in some of these parks? Madam Chair, we are not aware of any particular traffic safety concerns associated with these large events because of the number of access points by various modes to centralized events held largely in downtown London. So it’s a grid pattern. There’s many roads that can provide access.

If the Councilor is talking more about emergency response within the context of an event itself, there are plans that are developing in combination with the event holders, emergency service providers, and the emergency operations center for those events. Would an indication of those arrangements be included in the contract between a promoter and the city? I’m not sure he can get that. Now we’re comes back later.

So thank you, and through the chair, we currently require an emergency plan for all of our event holders. It’s part of when they sign the contract with the city of London. It’s part of the requirements. And as part of our review of the special events policy, we’re working with our emergency management and corporate security division and looking at what are those current templates, how can we enhance and build on them, and what are promising practices in other municipalities when it comes to emergency management around large special events?

Thank you. In light of the representation that there’ll be additional information giving the Council and also there will be a report in 2024. I do not intend to make a motion amendingness at this point. And thank you very much for your responses.

Thank you. So right now I have on the floor a receipt of the staff report moved by Councilor Trousal. I would need a seconder. Seconded by Councilor McAllister, and that gives you the right to the next speaker on the list, which you actually were anyways, but go ahead.

Thank you, the chair. I just want to highlight the great work I’ve seen in terms of our Rec and Parks department. I think in 2023, I had a number of good news stories. I just wanted to highlight the tennis courts with the Rome tree, the reopening of the Glen Cairn pool.

Very impactful things that we were able to get accomplished last year. Very much looking forward to the work starting on Silverwoods 2024, moving forward. I think it’s really great in this master plan that we acknowledge in terms of just the lifestyle cycle, renewal and reinvesting in the current facilities we have ‘cause they really do mean a lot to our older established neighborhoods. So speaking on behalf of my residents, they really do appreciate it.

I also want to also acknowledge that I appreciate in terms of our 2024 priorities, you know, with the cost of living that we acknowledge that the waiving or reducing of fees were possible. I don’t want there to be barriers to Londoners accessing parks and recs. I think it’s an important point that every opportunity do we try to make things affordable and accessible to Londoners. So I just wanted to end by saying, thank you for all the hard work for the parks and rec department, it really does mean a lot.

So from my word to staff, thank you very much. Thank you and that was currently my last speaker on that item, Councilor Pribble. Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff.

I was so extremely happy to see this report. Those are some really great numbers, especially when we look after the pandemic. And I think there’s a great value and service that we have provided to Londoners. And I was really very pleased and thank you and to all your teams because there’s a lot of work in every single person.

And I had the opportunity to visit quite a few sites during last year. And I really am very grateful and thankful because there’s a lot of value for half a million of Londoners. So thank you for that. I was really glad to hear that we are gonna go back to KPIs after the pandemic.

I do have a question regarding the 2024 plan and the initiatives and actions. We have implemented a new strategic model that includes the bottom step which we ended up calling implementation plan, which will have the actions, responsibilities, deadlines. And I just wanna make sure that these initiatives, actions that they are proposing for this year, they will be developed into the strategic model that we have proposed. Thank you.

Ms. Smith. Thank you and through the chair. Very good question and good timing because my team is working on it right now.

So you will see all of these aligned very nicely with the city of London’s strategic plan and the implementation plan. So we will be laying those out when we implement, when we lay out the implementation plan over the next four years. Councillor. So thank you for that.

Please keep working hard on it at these initiatives because I’m a really true believer that these initiatives that your two departments are proposing are bringing us more and more together or Londoners wherever we come from, whatever our backgrounds are. And I really think it’s a tremendously value and it’s on top and a lot of people overlook it, but it’s really tremendously important and great value. Thank you. Thank you, looking for their speakers.

Seeing none, calling the question. Councillor McAllister. Supposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, that concludes our consent items.

We have no scheduled items. We do have an item under items for direction. We’ve been at this two hours and 15 minutes, looking to see if everyone needs a break or just me ‘cause it was just me, someone else can chair while I’m gone. Okay, nice, I tried.

So looking 10, 15 minutes, okay. And I do recognize that we do have a delegation request for item 4.1 who has been with us. And I do see you and we will get to this after 10 minutes. So I need, Councillor, you can’t, if I lose quorum, then we just accidentally ended the meeting.

So a mover for 10 minutes from Councillor McAllister. Seconded by Councillor Ferrer, just a high hand vote. Okay, it passes 325, see you back. We’re recommencing, it’s 325.

Looking to staff if you wanted to do your overview of the, sorry, we’ve now adjourned or we haven’t adjourned. We’re still here. We’re back in session. Looking to staff to see if you wanted to do your, a brief overview of the staff report.

And then I will go to committee to see a delegation status for a member who’s been in the audience and then while going to Q&A. So to staff. Thank you and through the chair, as you will see on the committee agenda, Jones Entertainment Group has requested a policy exemption to hold rock the park for five consecutive days in Harris Park from July 9th to July 13th. So as per our current special events policy, this requires council approval.

I believe it has been done. It was exempted in 2020 and again in 2022. So we are allowed to only hold special events in so many days in Harris Park. So in order to do that, we have to manage the number of large events that are allowed.

So to this date, we have capacity as we only have nine current days of amplified concert in Harris Park. So should you approve this exception, we’ve attached a draft by-law to the report to go to council. Thank you. - Thank you.

Looking to committee to allow for the delegation request that was submitted in writing from Ms. Velastra, who is in the audience with us today. Moved by councilor Travis, I was seconded by councilor Pribble. So I would give the normal five minutes to a delegation.

That vote will become available in eScribe. The vote is open. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you to technology.

Our speaker is on the gallery on this side. Ms. Velastra, welcome. And you have up to five minutes.

And thank you for your patience and waiting for us to get to this item today. I’m getting used to it now. Okay. - I’m perfect.

We can hear you. Okay. So this comes up every time they ask for an extension. And the response we get is that filling up hotel rooms is more important than the wellbeing of residents.

So if you don’t experience this, it might be hard for you to understand. But what we hear is not music. From Rock the Park, what we hear is very loud bass that ricochets off our windows and off the tall buildings. And for people who live on the West side, the music, the sound becomes amplified as it goes down the river.

And there’s been complaints as far away as Spring Bank or South. And that’s very hard to endure. That pounding in that base that goes on for hours in a day and into the evening. And it doesn’t feel good.

It feels very uncomfortable. We can’t sit in our yards. And as we learn more about the negative impacts of noise, I would really appreciate it if you would consider people over just filling up hotel rooms. I don’t understand why you can’t find the balance in something like that.

This Rock the Park already has four days. And it makes a big difference for residents to have to endure yet another day of just having this vibration all the time inside their house and outside their house. And I wanna challenge the staff person who said there’s a lot of access points to Rock the Park. That’s not true.

The access points are through our neighborhoods. And you can see this when you go to Rock the Park. Our streets are filled with traffic, filled with parking spots, often illegal. At the end of the night, late into the night, we hear doors slamming people loud and drunk.

We hear a lot of revved up vehicles, all associated with that exodus of people on foot and cars leaving after Rock the Park. So it’s incredibly intrusive. We are putting up with it now. I’m hoping that the master plan will look at whether these events are appropriate in our parks.

Harris Park is eroded, sections of it are bald, it’s muddy, it’s hard to sit on the grass. And now, and just to say that a lot of the trees on Harris Park are being removed now because they’re gonna put a road in so that the trucks for these events, there’s literally gonna be a road for these trucks to move into the park. And that’s why a lot of these trees at Harris Park are being removed. And that’s why people are upset.

And that’s why there’s a protest plan from March 24th. So I’m asking you to please think about residents. It’s one day for Rock the Park, but it’s five days, a complete chaos in the neighborhoods that surround the park. And for the ones that are farther away, their sound is even more distorted.

So we don’t hear a Neil Young, we just hear bass. And I would appreciate if you would respect us and not just push us aside just because you think it might fill out a hotel room for one more day. So I’m asking you to vote no on this extension. And then we need to seriously consider whether these events are even appropriate, like if 15,000 people are appropriate in a park.

And the last thing I wanna say, which is important to me, but again, this gets fluffed off, is there a wildlife fledglings at that time in the park? It has a long history, a wildlife nesting of migratory birds. And that kind of event, no studies ever been done to see how many kills of young birds are happening because of those events. And that goes to fireworks as well.

And for people that live there, wildlife viewing is a very important past time. And one of the best things about living along the river. And I would appreciate it if you looked at this in a more holistic way and not just dismiss our voices, ‘cause you think someone is gonna make an extra money for one night in a hotel room. Thank you.

Thank you. Hey, that was the staff report and the one delegation that we had today. The staff report does have a section A and B that is on page 126 of your committee report. I’ll also note that there was another added communication as well that was sent in.

That’s on your added agenda. Looking to committee members as I would need a mover and a seconder of something to advance the conversation. Or to receive the staff report. Like that one, I could always split A and B.

So I need something on the floor to have us a discussion. So Councilor Pribble on page 126 is the staff’s recommendation. Part A is that the request be received and then part B is directing staff to do something. So looking to see if someone would put A and B on the floor and we can separate, you can vote down or up what you like.

Just we need somebody on the floor to have a discussion. Councilor Pribble. I would like to move the staff recommendation. Yes.

Okay, so Councilor Pribble’s moving section A and B. Councilor McAllister is seconding A and B. So that puts the report and the direction on the floor. We will call those separate when it comes time to vote, absolutely, looking to see a speaker’s list on this item.

Councilor Ferra. Thank you through you. So the Councilor who sees this area and has residents around, I do get a fair amount of feedback when Rock the Park is taking place. And I would also add that I live about 937 meters away direct line of sight.

So I can hear what’s going on pretty clearly and I can’t hear very well. And so I do understand what we’re hearing from residents. I would wanna say that, you know, I do wanna see like an economic impact for the downtown core, but I also would like to know who is, who do the operators have in mind for that Tuesday? That’s really kind of where my vote will land.

I’d like to know who it is. If it’s someone like Taylor Swift, I will be voting for that. But if it’s someone that we don’t know of, I’m not really willing to kind of write a blank check. So that’s kind of the question I have.

I would love to hear if we can get some information on who they would have for that Tuesday. But at this point, I don’t have that information. So I would probably not be supporting that extra day at this moment. I’m not aware of who it would be.

Usually they expand and it’s a good lineup as they are looking for ticket sales staff. Do you have an inlet inside scoop on who the performers might be? Thank you through the chair. I’m just looking at the note they attached and it states, we have an opportunity to present some country artists on Tuesday, July 9th for 10,000 fans coming into downtown London.

So that’s all the information I would assume when they reached out to my special events team with the letter and then the recommendation, we said it’s dependent upon council’s decision making. So I assume they’re waiting for a decision to be made at the council meeting before they confirm anything. Councillor? Thank you.

So that is what I’m looking for, who it is. I did check Taylor Swift’s schedule and she’s in Germany. So I would assume that she’s not coming to this one. But I’m interested on who that would be.

That would be what would carry my vote to know who it is at this time. Okay, and perhaps at a future meeting you can ask the mayor to write a letter directing Taylor Swift to appear before a London city council and some fans in London looking to see for their speakers on this item. Councillor Trausau. In all due respect, I think it’s a little disingenuous to call this a one-time exemption.

Because it just happens, it just happens. This is not a one-time exemption. This is becoming the rule. And I think the speaker outlined some of the legitimate concerns that people in the neighbourhood have.

Now, I am not trying to cut back the days. I’m not trying to do anything like that. But I am absolutely not willing without more information as the Councillor has requested. I’m not going to approve this just based on we’d like to book some other acts.

Why do we have limits in the first place? Why do we have these limits? And I guess my question to staff historically is, what is the rationale for even having limits on the number of days that we can have these concerts in the first place? Thank you to staff.

Thank you, and through the chair, the current special events policy allows for 12 days of combined amplified concerts per year in Harris Park. So in the current special events policy by-law, there was a limit on the number of days per event to allow for a number of events to total 12 amplified concert days per year. Typically our special events book the year before. So currently right now, we have three requests for major events, totaling nine amplified concerts.

Therefore, there’s three days according to the current special events policy that amplified concerts are allowed in Harris Park. Hence the requests coming from the special events holder to add an additional day. Councillor. There’s no mandate that 12 days be used.

That’s just the maximum, correct? Staff. Through the chair, that is set out in the policy. And Harris Park, it outlines the number of days allowed right now to have amplified concerts in Harris Park.

Councillor. Is there an issue with stress on the land if it’s being overused, including trees and the entire environment? Staff. Through you, Madam Chair, that is one of the reasons behind limiting the number of event days that occur in both Harris and Victoria Park is to ensure there’s adequate time to have those ecosystems recover in between and to make sure that we have the time to clean up and deal with that space well.

Councillor Troso. Regarding last year’s rock to park event, were there complaints regarding vehicles, including large trucks coming in proximity to the event? Thank you. And through the chair, yes, we had one complaint that I’m aware of at least one day, maybe a couple of complaints on that day.

We had extreme flood warnings in Harris Park last year. So I think it was one of the exception years. And because of that, vehicles had very limited space of where they could park to offload. And appreciated of the complaints from the community that we activated those right away, contacted the special events holder to move the vehicle.

But we’re aware of that. And my team is down there during the event, trying to manage and ensure that all the policies and rules are followed as best they can. Okay, well, I don’t have any further questions. I’ve heard nothing on the floor that would change my vote.

And I’m going to be voting no on this. Thank you. Thank you, further speakers? Councilor Pribble.

Sorry, Councilor Pribble’s next, and then Councilor Layman. Thank you, so I live very close to it as well. And actually my business is close to it as well. And I want to start by saying that actually, going back of the 23 years of the ownership of the business, the rock of the park is not really again for me.

It’s actually, if anything, I would say it works against me because I don’t get a lot of clientele from there to come to the restaurant. But the parking lots are full and my regular customers, they have to park further. Having said that, when I see all those people walking down and the joy, the fun, the excitement, and us bringing and this private organization bringing people together, I love to see that. I really love to see that.

I see that, yes, it is one additional day, but if I look at if we talk about trees, grass, the one additional day is, in my perspective, it’s not gonna be a game changer. I would like if there is, and I just heard that there is gonna be a country music, so yes, it’s not gonna be much in our train, but whoever, but anyways, bottom line is, it’s gonna be country music. I’m very much in support of it, and I want people to come. And again, if we go back, what we went through the pandemic few years ago, these events and what I was saying 10, 15, 20 minutes ago, we need to bring Londoners together, spend as much time together, and have a great time.

And I think Rock the Park delivers that for Londoners, and I hope that it will be past, and we are gonna have another great year of Rock the Park, thank you. Thank you, Councilor Layman. Thank you. Yesterday I was at the Richmond Tavern in the afternoon, listening to a fantastic local London band, Newport Electric, who just dropped their latest album on Spotify for a whole plug there.

And everyone was there, it was a packed house, and it was creating a lot of energy. A lot of discussion about us being the UNESCO City of Music. What makes a downtown vibrant, what makes a city a cool place to visit and to live? Well, I can’t think of anything more than live music.

I wish we had more live music, and as we see more people move downtown and done tasks, come back to life. I hope we see increased opportunities to see live music, local bands, bands coming in from our town. This particular event has gained a wide following. Cities are known for certain events, and I would argue that this city is known for Rock the Park.

It’s an annual event. It’s professionally run when I heard of questions about complaints. I’m surprised with the thousands of people that come down that complaints are small, and I think it speaks well to our city staff and the operators of this event. They know what they’re doing.

Every now and then, yeah, they ask for an extension, and I think the reason for constraints are for constraints there is to allow if others want to produce activities down the park, they would get their share of it. This particular year, there’s capacity in our booking to have an extra day here. There’s no question of the popularity by those that live in London and outside of London. The economic spin-offs are huge, and boy, what a fun time in the middle of summer for us to celebrate in a terrific, responsible way.

So I encourage the committee to allow this extra day, and I look forward to seeing more of these types of events in London. Thank you for their questions or comments before calling the question. Seeing none, calling the vote. And yes, we are suffering them out.

So A is coming first, which is the report B received, and then we will deal with B. Sir Pribble, closing the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0. Thank you. This is now part B, the one directing civic administration.

Closing the vote, the motion carries 3 to 2. Thank you. That concludes IMS for direction, and our deferred matter is additional business. I am aware of one.

It is an emergent motion. It will need to be presented by Councillor Pribble as he’s a member committee, though it has to deal with Councillor Stevenson’s ward. Hey, Councillor Pribble, if you want to read it out, you’d also refresh your screen. It is now loaded in the e-scribe.

So the system motion being brought forward, that civic administration be directed to implement a reduced parking incentive as a pilot project until the end of quarter 3, 2024, municipal lots one and two, utilizing the existing Hong mobile application, recognizing the municipal lots one and two, have a lower hourly and daily revenue intake in relation to other parking lots managed by the city. And the reason why this was brought forward because the current agreement ends on March 31st, and this is the motion I’m bringing forward. Okay, I did deem it as emergent, as this is either the work would be done here at committee, and it goes to the April 2nd Council, or Council is, I don’t wanna say blindsided, but given really short notice to deal with on the second. So that’s why this is the committee it comes through.

So I said, yes, I will let yes to hearing it. Councillor Pribble, I’m not sure if you wanna speak to it first. I am on the speaker’s list, but. Chair, I have the chair recognizing Councillor Palosa.

Thank you. As I said, I like to do committee work at committee and to make sure that Councillors have information that they can be prepared with. I will not be supporting this myself, but one discussion to happen here in at council. So we have a base of a premise.

Realizing council will probably be a long night on the second as well. And happy that the council is here to speak to it. And then they can certainly make their full case at council, realizing some of their councilors might have similar concerns. It allows for that platform realizing as stated, things expire on the 31st.

Thank you, Councillor. I will yield the chair back to you. Looking to see if there’s any immediate speakers of council. If not, I will go to the visiting councilor to, since they’re not a member of council, they couldn’t second or move their own motion.

Councillor McAllister. Thank you through the chair. I was just wondering if staff could comment in terms of the financial impact that this would have in terms of the reduction of fees. Mr.

Mathers. Through the chair. So just to give a little bit of background, there was temporary free parking in these lots that was provided through the core reaction plan. That funding is no longer available and it ends at Q1 of this year, so that just at the end of the month.

So this is to replace that. We have a very high level estimate of about $80 to $100,000 for these lots. And we don’t currently have a source of funding to be able to subsidize that from, but that would be something that would be a logical progression out of the work that’s being suggested here. Councillor McAllister.

Sorry, I thought you were a hand-talking versus telling me that you were good. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I just wanted to say thank you to committee for letting me get this on here today.

I do have some work to do prior to council on April 2nd. But I’ve had several people reach out to me concerned about the parking in municipal lots one and two. So if anybody has been there recently, I parked their last Saturday night to go to a play at the palace. It’s a concerning situation.

It’s not a place that feels very safe to leave your car or to even walk through. And so to be asking people to pay full price for the parking, I think is really unfair. So the businesses there are struggling for many reasons that I know we have many programs in place to try to assist that. I’m hoping, in speaking to staff, the recommendation was that this would go to Q3 2024 in the hopes that we will have done the things that are needed to make this just a temporary measure.

The other really pressing concern is we have 95 beds in the cold weather response right there. And staff and volunteers have reached out saying that the additional cost for parking is an issue. So hence the emergent nature of this as well. So it is a request that given what I hope to be extenuating in temporary circumstances that we’re facing there, and I appreciate staff working with me this morning to come up with something that won’t be too costly and that will support all of the endeavors that we’re trying to do in that area.

So I do appreciate it. I understand the vote may not go the way I want it to a committee, and that’s okay, I appreciate it being here so that I can address it at council. Thank you. Councilor Perbo?

Thank you, the chair to the staff. I heard $8,200,000. Is that for the six month extension, or is that the annual? Through the chair, so that’s an estimate for the six month period.

Okay, thank you for that answer. I will certainly, as I put out the motion, I will certainly support it. I’m based on what my full council has stated in terms of the social agencies, community organizations we have there. And for the businesses, and I really think that this would be a benefit, that it’s not at such a high cost, but I really think it would make a difference for this part of London.

Thank you. Thank you, further speakers? Councilor Ferra. Thank you, through you.

For the, so I can see we have, I think, over 20 municipal parking lots currently, is that correct, 2022? And I see that this is having like, it has a lower hourly and daily revenue intake, because I’m assuming it’s not used as much. I’m just worried about, I get feedback as well, about us closing the core code and not giving the free parking as it is now. And we have extended this several times already.

I’m just very concerned on the slippery slope that this might add up if we were to approve those two municipal parking lots for free parking, and we have all these other ones, especially when we’re trying to have a direction, just the direction that we’re trying to take right now. So we’ve extended it a couple of times. So I guess my first question would be, are there any other lots that have a low daily revenue intake, that would be similar to municipal lots one and two, that you know of? Through the chair, we haven’t done that analysis at this point.

That’s okay. I know I didn’t ask this question earlier. My next question would be how much revenue did we forgo with the free, poor code on the Honk app, municipal, with all the lots considered? All the lots since it was implemented?

Yes, I did, I remember we saw that on a report, but I just can’t remember the number. Through the chair, so that report was in June of 2023. The annual overall budget deficit was approximately $3 million per year over the period of the program. Sorry.

Thank you for that. So I’m just concerned about like what precedent this would set if we were to open it up like that. And that’s why I wouldn’t be supporting it. I understand what the council is trying to do.

I did have the similar thoughts with some of my municipal parking lots as well, are the ones that are within ward 13. But I figured that considering with budget constraints, especially what we just went through with the multi-year budget, we do need to make sure that we have all sources of revenue coming in. So I wouldn’t be supporting that as it is right now for those two reasons. For the precedent that it may set with other municipal parking lots and with the revenue piece as well.

And I should add a third portion to that with our direction with what we’re trying to take with the city, with downtown, with parking in general. So that’s why I wouldn’t be supporting this motion as it is. Thank you, further speakers. Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you, just a quick comment to that. And it may be a question to staff as to whether it is precedent setting, but the motion says that it’s a pilot project. It’s just for those two municipal lots. So that wouldn’t be the street parking and the extensive core area, which of course I would love.

And we know that it’s quite costly. And so I would love to ask for more and I’d love to ask for the whole downtown. And there’s a specific and unique situation in those two lots that isn’t anywhere else. It isn’t even on the street.

It’s just in those lots. And we do have the issue of number 69 in the core area action plan that was never addressed. We have the extra social service agencies funded in that area for now, knowing it’s a temporary extenuating circumstance. And so again, that’s just why I’m asking for this to be a unique situation with a unique solution.

Councillor Trossa. So it’s a one-time request. I sure hope so. There’s lots of plans in place to address these issues this year.

And I do hope so. Well, I don’t hear any reason why I would be inclined to support this $80,000 extension. I’m wondering why this didn’t come through the budget process. Things that come through the budget process are directed by council and we already gave staff a direction to stop.

Through the chair, we were given direction to not extend the program beyond Q1 2023. So that would be, that’s what we included in the budget process. You were given direction by council, in which case is this a decided matter of council? I would say it, I deemed it to be different enough that it was looking for a short exemption for a pilot project while other things came in place.

Like a stopgap measure. Through the chair, we did speak to the clerk about that. And it was not deemed to be, it was a significantly different. Okay, well, let me deal with this one, the merits thing.

I could think of a lot of things that I’d like to do with that $80,000. That we just went through a process where people were like, oh no, we can’t spend another $80,000 on this or that. I’ll use the arts council as an example. Didn’t even get to the floor.

I just really have a hard time with doing this as a last minute add-on outside of the normal process because people would like to have subsidized parking. And I know the question of subsidized parking is a contentious issue in this town. And I’m not sitting here saying, you know, get rid of all of it. But I just think to extend it at the cost of $80,000 at the last minute, just under the guise of it being a one-time thing, I just don’t see the justification.

So I’ll be voting no on this and I’ll be encouraging other Councillors to vote no on this. Thank you. Thank you. I have no announcements in the speakers list.

Call on the question. Closing the vote, the motion fails one to four. That’s all I’m aware of for the deferred matters, additional business or emergent motions. We do have an item for confidential sessions.

So we’re going to stay put in chambers for that. So everyone else who’s not privy to that can take their leave and give me a moment while we secure chambers. Thank you. Oh, sorry.

And I need that motion to go into closed session. Moved by Councillor McAllister. Count seconded by Councillor Trosto. That vote’s opening in E-Scribe.

Councillors, Pribble and Trosto. Pribble’s done. Is there any? Can you close it?

I’ve marked him as absent. You missed your vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries four. Yeah, it’s a career to just close the doors up top.

I have sent them to lock the Councillor for your report out. Thank you, Chair. And I can report out the progress was made during our closed session. Thank you.

That concludes all business that we had on the agenda to deal with. It would be now a motion for adjournment. Moved by Councillor Trosto. Seconded by Councillor McAllister.

All in favor of adjournment via a show of hands. That motion is carried. We are adjourned.