April 23, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:03 PM; it being noted that Councillors S. Stevenson, S. Lehman, P. Van Meerbergen and S. Hillier were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that Councillor C. Rahman disclosed a pecuniary interest in item 6, clause 2.1 of the 7th Report of the Corporate Services Committee having to do with expropriation of lands and the East London Link Project Phase 4, by indicating that Fanshawe College is her employer.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

None.

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

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the Minutes of the 7th Meeting of the Municipal Council, held on April 2, 2024, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by E. Peloza

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

6.1 735 Wonderland Road North - (Z-9704) 

(Refer to the Planning and Environment Committee Stage for Consideration with Item #5 (3.3) of the 6th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee)

  1. B. Templeton 

  2. B. Sterner 

  3. M. Felker 

  4. B. Elliott 

  5. C. Wilkinson 

  6. W. Medwid

6.2 Byron Gravel Pit Secondary Plan 

(Refer to the Planning and Environment Committee Stage for Consideration with Item #6 (3.4) of the 6th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee)

  1. B. Samuels 

  2. Councillor S. Franke 

  3. C. Schultz 

  4. R. St. Pierre

6.3 2023 Year-End Operating Budget Monitoring Report 

(Refer to the Corporate Services Committee Stage for Consideration with Item #7 (2.2) of the 7th Report of the Corporate Services Committee)

  1. Board of Directors, London Convention Centre Corporation Operating as RBC Place London 

  2. C. Butler

6.4 Secondary School Student Transit Pass Pilot Project 

(Refer to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee Stage for Consideration with Item #5 (5.1) of the 8th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee)

  1. Councillor D. Ferreira and Councillor C. Rahman

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   6th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2024-04-09 PEC Report Full

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 6th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 4 (3.2), 5 (3.3), and 6 (3.4).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) 4th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 4th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on March 21, 2024, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (3.1) 3696 & 3832 Scotland Drive - (Z-9705) (Relates to Bill No. 150)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Bre-Ex Aggregates Ltd., relating to the property located at 3696 and 3832 Scotland Drive:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 9, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 23, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Resource Extraction (EX) Zone TO a Resource Extraction Special Provision (EX()) Zone and Holding Resource Extraction Special Provision (h-18h-166EX1()) Zone; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to forward Ecology comments regarding the identified Significant Wildlife Habitat and Species at Risk, appended to the staff report dated April 9, 2024 as Appendix “F”, to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry for consideration in their future site plan review;

it being pointed out that S. Allen, MHBC Planning, made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment would facilitate the construction of a resource extraction-related facility that is appropriate for the context of the site;

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

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the Planning and Environment Committee Deferred Matters List dated March 28, 2024 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (3.2) 634 Commissioners Road West - (Z-9708) (Relates to Bill No. 151)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Royal Premier Homes (c/o Sivik Planning and Design), relating to the property located at 634 Commissioners Road West:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 9, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 23, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to AMEND the Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7(30)) Zone;

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

i)    provide 1.8-metre-tall privacy fencing along property lines adjacent to residential parcels;

ii)    retain as many mature trees as possible, especially along Commissioners Road West and along the east and south property lines between the proposed development and the adjacent single detached dwellings; and,

iii)    provide short-term and long-term bicycle parking stalls; 

 

c)    that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to evaluate the north side sidewalk gap and potential need for a PXO to ensure sufficient pedestrian connectivity;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the Project Summary with respect to these matters;

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

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

  •    D. May, President, Condominium Association;

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

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

  •    the recommended zoning conforms to the policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to, the Neighbourhoods Place Type, City Building Policies and Our Tools;

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of infill development;

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

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

8.1.5   (3.3) 735 Wonderland Road North - (Z-9704) (Relates to Bill No.’s 132 & 152)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 735 Wonderland Rd North Inc.  c/o Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd., relating to the property located at 735 Wonderland Road North:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 9, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 23, 2024 to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Transit Village Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policies Areas – of the Official Plan;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 9, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 23, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Associated Shopping Area Commercial (ASA1/ASA2/ASA3/ASA5/ ASA6) Zone TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC1(_)) Zone;

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

i)    incorporate elements that achieve the following:

A)    principle entrances that are oriented and are accessible from the relevant street frontage;

B)    forecourts on ground floor commercial units;

C)    urban character between the building/street interface;

D)    integrated parking and garbage ramps with active uses on the ground floor to activate the front face of buildings to the street;

E)    appropriate lay-by locations;

F)    green development elements, where appropriate;

ii)    implement all Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) recommendations into a future site plan application notably, the two-way left-turn lane along Beaverbrook Drive; and,

d)    the Municipal Housing Development division BE CONSULTED for the provision of affordable housing units to be undertaken as part of the Site Plan process;

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

  •    a communication dated March 3, 2024 from C. Wilkinson; and,

  •    a communication dated April 8, 2024 from K. and C. McNairn;

 

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

  •    N. Dyjach, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.;

  •    Dr. J. Barnett;

  •    B. Elliott;

  •    C. Wilkinson;

  •    Resident;

  •    M. Felker;

  •    A. Hobbs, Director, Condominium Complex 474; and,

  •    W. Medwid;

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

 

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

  •    the recommended amendments conform to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design and Building policies, and will facilitate a built form that contributes to achieving a compact, mixed-use City;

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area with an appropriate form of infill development; and,

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

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2024-D08)

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the motion be amended to include new part c) iii) to read as follows:

iii)   to consult with Middlesex-London Paramedic Service regarding traffic mitigation measures in the vicinity as part of site plan approval;

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the motion be amended to include new part c) iv) to read as follows:

iv)   to study the issue of “filtered-permeability” with respect to mitigating the effects of cut-through traffic resulting from the opening of Beaverbrook Avenue and Westfield Drive and that this item be placed on a future Civic Works Committee agenda.

Motion Failed (4 to 10)

At 2:02 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor E. Peloza in the Chair.

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

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the motion be amended to include the following:

That it BE FURTHER NOTED that through this application residents, businesses owners and community members raised concerns about ongoing traffic issues, movement of ambulances and the need for traffic planning in this area to address increased density from development planned in the West London area; and that this item should be included in future MMP reports to Civic Works Committee that discuss transit, road network and active transportation planning for West London.

Motion Failed (6 to 8)

At 2:12 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor E. Peloza in the Chair.

At 2:15 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That item 5, clause 3.3, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Item 5, clause 3.3, as amended, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 735 Wonderland Rd North Inc.  c/o Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd., relating to the property located at 735 Wonderland Road North:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 9, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 23, 2024 to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Transit Village Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policies Areas – of the Official Plan;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 9, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 23, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Associated Shopping Area Commercial (ASA1/ASA2/ASA3/ASA5/ ASA6) Zone TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC1(_)) Zone;

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

i)    incorporate elements that achieve the following:

A)    principle entrances that are oriented and are accessible from the relevant street frontage;

B)    forecourts on ground floor commercial units;

C)    urban character between the building/street interface;

D)    integrated parking and garbage ramps with active uses on the ground floor to activate the front face of buildings to the street;

E)    appropriate lay-by locations;

F)    green development elements, where appropriate;

ii)    implement all Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) recommendations into a future site plan application notably, the two-way left-turn lane along Beaverbrook Drive; and

iii)   to consult with Middlesex-London Paramedic Service regarding traffic mitigation measures in the vicinity as part of site plan approval;

d)    the Municipal Housing Development division BE CONSULTED for the provision of affordable housing units to be undertaken as part of the Site Plan process;

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

  •    a communication dated March 3, 2024 from C. Wilkinson; and,

  •    a communication dated April 8, 2024 from K. and C. McNairn;

 

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

  •    N. Dyjach, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.;

  •    Dr. J. Barnett;

  •    B. Elliott;

  •    C. Wilkinson;

  •    Resident;

  •    M. Felker;

  •    A. Hobbs, Director, Condominium Complex 474; and,

  •    W. Medwid;

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

 

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

  •    the recommended amendments conform to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design and Building policies, and will facilitate a built form that contributes to achieving a compact, mixed-use City;

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area with an appropriate form of infill development; and,

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

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2024-D08)

8.1.6   (3.4) Byron Gravel Pit Secondary Plan (Relates to Bill No. 133)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Byron Gravel Pits Secondary Plan Final Report:

a)    the proposed attached, revised by-law as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 23, 2024, TO AMEND the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as follows:

i)    ADOPT the Byron Gravel Pits Secondary Plan, appended to the staff report dated April 9, 2024 as Schedule “1”;

ii)    DELETE Policy 1168, Specific Policies for the Byron Gravel Pits within the Future Community Growth Place Types;

iii)    AMEND Policies 1537 and 1538, Byron Gravel Pits and Adjacent Lands Specific Policies for Aggregate Resources;

iv)    AMEND Policy 1565 TO ADD the Byron Gravel Pits Secondary Plan to the list of adopted Secondary Plans;

v)    AMEND Map 1 – Place Types to change the land use designation FROM Future Community Growth, Environmental Review, Green Space and Neighbourhoods Place Types TO Neighbourhoods, Green Space and Environmental Review Place Types as indicated on Schedule “2”;

vi)    AMEND Map 3 – Street Classifications TO MODIFY Commissioners Road West, a Civic Boulevard, as indicated on Schedule “3”;

vii)    AMEND Map 4 – Active Mobility Network TO MODIFY the Cycling and Walking Routes within the Byron Gravel Pits Secondary Plan Area as indicated on Schedule “4”;

viii)    AMEND Map 7 - Specific Policy Areas TO ADD Byron Gravel Pits Secondary Plan Area, and MERGE Specific Policy Area 66 into Specific Policy Area 67 as indicated on Schedule “5”;

ix)    AMEND Schedule 1 from 18 storeys with an upper maximum of 22 storeys; and,

x)    AMEND Schedule 1 from 25% affordable housing to 10% to 15% affordable housing;

 

b)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to undertake the following:

i)    consult the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks to clarify Endangered Species Act regulatory requirements that apply to preserving or relocating species at risk habitat for the Bank Swallow within the Central Pond and Open Space Policy Area; and,

ii)    contact the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry to clarify Aggregate Resources Act regulatory requirements that apply to rehabilitating and potentially preserving existing site conditions and topography within the Central Pond and Open Space Policy Area;

it being noted that pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, no further notice be given with respect to the proposed by-law as the changes are minimal;

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

  •    the Byron Gravel Pits Secondary Plan, March 2024;

  •    a communication dated February 8, 2024, from D. Hayman, Senior Biologist and A. Leadbetter, Biologist, MTE Consultants;

  •    a communication dated February 9, 2024, from C. Linton, Highland Ridge Land Corp; and,

  •    a communication dated April 3, 2024, from S. Stapleton, Vice President, Auburn Developments;

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

  •    M. Vise;

  •    M. Shepherd;

  •    C. Linton on behalf of Highland Ridge Land Corp.;

  •    M. Wallace, London Development Institute;

  •    S. Stapleton, Auburn Developments;

  •    D. Ennis; and,

  •    N. Pellizzari;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2024-D08)

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the motion be amended to include a new part c) to read as follows:

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to ensure that future background studies supporting the development of a Park Master Plan for the Byron gravel pit investigate the creation and inclusion of artificial habitat or an alternative location for the Bank Swallow, if such needs are required due to planned relocation of the habitat;

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

At 2:32 PM, Councillor S. Trosow leaves the meeting.

At 2:37 PM, Councillor S. Trosow enters the meeting.

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That parts a) ix) and x) BE APPROVED:

ix) AMEND Schedule 1 from 18 storeys with an upper maximum of 22 storeys; and,

x) AMEND Schedule 1 from 25% affordable housing to 10% to 15% affordable housing;

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the balance of item 6, clause 3.4, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Item 6, clause 3.4, as amended, read as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Byron Gravel Pits Secondary Plan Final Report:

a)    the proposed attached, revised by-law as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 23, 2024, TO AMEND the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as follows:

i)    ADOPT the Byron Gravel Pits Secondary Plan, appended to the staff report dated April 9, 2024 as Schedule “1”;

ii)    DELETE Policy 1168, Specific Policies for the Byron Gravel Pits within the Future Community Growth Place Types;

iii)    AMEND Policies 1537 and 1538, Byron Gravel Pits and Adjacent Lands Specific Policies for Aggregate Resources;

iv)    AMEND Policy 1565 TO ADD the Byron Gravel Pits Secondary Plan to the list of adopted Secondary Plans;

v)    AMEND Map 1 – Place Types to change the land use designation FROM Future Community Growth, Environmental Review, Green Space and Neighbourhoods Place Types TO Neighbourhoods, Green Space and Environmental Review Place Types as indicated on Schedule “2”;

vi)    AMEND Map 3 – Street Classifications TO MODIFY Commissioners Road West, a Civic Boulevard, as indicated on Schedule “3”;

vii)    AMEND Map 4 – Active Mobility Network TO MODIFY the Cycling and Walking Routes within the Byron Gravel Pits Secondary Plan Area as indicated on Schedule “4”;

viii)    AMEND Map 7 - Specific Policy Areas TO ADD Byron Gravel Pits Secondary Plan Area, and MERGE Specific Policy Area 66 into Specific Policy Area 67 as indicated on Schedule “5”;

ix)    AMEND Schedule 1 from 18 storeys with an upper maximum of 22 storeys; and,

x)    AMEND Schedule 1 from 25% affordable housing to 10% to 15% affordable housing;

b)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to undertake the following:

i)    consult the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks to clarify Endangered Species Act regulatory requirements that apply to preserving or relocating species at risk habitat for the Bank Swallow within the Central Pond and Open Space Policy Area; and,

ii)    contact the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry to clarify Aggregate Resources Act regulatory requirements that apply to rehabilitating and potentially preserving existing site conditions and topography within the Central Pond and Open Space Policy Area;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to ensure that future background studies supporting the development of a Park Master Plan for the Byron gravel pit investigate the creation and inclusion of artificial habitat or an alternative location for the Bank Swallow, if such needs are required due to planned relocation of the habitat;

it being noted that pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, no further notice be given with respect to the proposed by-law as the changes are minimal;

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

  •    the Byron Gravel Pits Secondary Plan, March 2024;

  •    a communication dated February 8, 2024, from D. Hayman, Senior Biologist and A. Leadbetter, Biologist, MTE Consultants;

  •    a communication dated February 9, 2024, from C. Linton, Highland Ridge Land Corp; and,

  •    a communication dated April 3, 2024, from S. Stapleton, Vice President, Auburn Developments;

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

  •    M. Vise;

  •    M. Shepherd;

  •    C. Linton on behalf of Highland Ridge Land Corp.;

  •    M. Wallace, London Development Institute;

  •    S. Stapleton, Auburn Developments;

  •    D. Ennis; and,

  •    N. Pellizzari;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2024-D08)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the Council recess at this time.

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 2:45 PM and reconvenes at 2:55 PM.

8.2   7th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2024-04-15 CSC Report 7

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That the 7th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 6 (2.1) and 7 (2.2).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That it BE NOTED that Councillor C. Rahman disclosed a pecuniary interest in item 2.1, having to do with expropriation of lands and the East London Link Project Phase 4, by indicating that Fanshawe College is her employer.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.4) Year 2024 Tax Policy (Relates to Bill No.’s 127 & 128)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to property taxation for 2024:

a)         the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 15, 2024 as Appendix ‘A’ being a by-law setting tax ratios for property classes in 2024, in accordance with Sub-sections 308(4) and 308.1(4) of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 23, 2024, it being noted that the 2024 Municipal Tax Ratio By-Law has been prepared reflecting the equalization of the average property tax increase in residential and multi-residential classes with no change to other tax ratios;

b)         the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 15, 2024 as Appendix ‘B’ being a by-law levying tax rates for property classes in 2024, in accordance with Sections 307 and 312 of the Municipal Act, 2001 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 23, 2024; and

c)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to invite the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation to provide an update at the May 6, 2024 meeting of the Corporate Services Committee on municipal property assessment in the Province of Ontario.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.5) Year 2024 Education Tax Rates (Relates to Bill No. 129)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 15, 2204 as Appendix “A” being a by-law levying rates for 2024 for school purposes in the City of London BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 23, 2024.

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.6) Court Security and Prisoner Transportation Program Transfer Payment Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 130)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 15, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on April 23, 2024 to:

a)    approve the Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement between His Majesty the King in right of Ontario as represented by the Solicitor General and The Corporation of the City of London for the provision of funding for the Court Security and Prisoner Transportation Program (“Agreement”) appended as Schedule “1” to the staff report;

b)    authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute the Agreement;

c)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports to approve any future amending agreements between His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario as represented by the Solicitor General and The Corporation of the City of London with respect to the Court Security and Prisoner Transportation Program (“CSPT”);

d)    authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute any future amending agreements between His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario as represented by the Solicitor General and The Corporation of the City of London with respect to the Court Security and Prisoner Transportation Program (“CSPT”) approved by the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports;

e)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports (or designate) to execute any reports required by the province under the Agreement; and

f)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports to approve and execute an agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and the London Police Services Board regarding obligations in respect of the funds and obligations in connection with the Agreement.

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (2.7) Board of Directors - Federation of Canadian Municipalities - Councillor S. Franke

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication dated March 18, 2024 from Councillor S. Franke regarding standing for election to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ Board of Directors and her associated expenses:

WHEREAS the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) represents the interests of municipalities on policy and program matters that fall within federal jurisdiction;

WHEREAS FCM’s Board of Directors is comprised of elected municipal officials from all regions and sizes of communities to form a broad base of support and provide FCM with the prestige required to carry the municipal message to the federal government;

WHEREAS FCM’s Annual Conferences and Trade Show will take place June 6-9, 2024, in Calgary, and June 2025 in Ottawa, during which time the Annual General Meeting will be held and followed by the election of FCM’s Board of Directors;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of The Corporation of the City of London endorses Councillor Skylar Franke to stand for election on FCM’s Board of Directors for the 2024/2025 term;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Councillor Skylar Franke be reimbursed by The Corporation of the City of London, outside their annual expense allocation, for her campaign expenses in seeking re-election to the Board of Directors, in an amount of up to $500, upon submission of eligible receipts; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council assumes all costs associated with Councillor Skylar Franke attending FCM’s Board of Directors meetings, the FCM Annual Conference and AGM and the Trade Show, during the 2024/2025 term.

Motion Passed

8.2.8   (2.3) 2023 Year-End Capital Budget Monitoring Report

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Year-End Capital Budget Monitoring Report:

a) the 2023 Year-End Capital Budget Monitoring Report BE RECEIVED for information, it being noted that the life-to-date capital budget represents $3.5 billion with $1.9 billion committed and $1.6 billion uncommitted; it being further noted that the City Treasurer, or designate, will undertake the housekeeping budget adjustments identified in the report, in accordance with the Multi-Year Budget Policy adopted by amending by-law No. CPOL.-45(c)-209;

b) the capital budget adjustments in section 2.4 BE APPROVED to transfer available surplus funding to projects requiring additional funding:

i) $650 thousand from EW384222 – Lead and Copper Water Service Replacement Program to EW1103 - Outer Drive Reservoir Demolition;

ii) $600 thousand from EW384222 – Lead and Copper Water Service Replacement Program to EW110423 – Southeast Pumping Station Optimization and Renewal;

iii) $428 thousand from EW383321 – Watermain Construction and Repairs to EW110423 – Southeast Pumping Station Optimization and Renewal;

c) the status updates of active 2020 life-to-date capital budgets (2020 and prior) having no future budget requests, as appended to the staff report as Appendix “B”, BE RECEIVED for information;

d) the following actions be taken with respect to the completed capital projects identified in Appendix “C” as appended to the staff report, which have a total of $2.3 million of net surplus funding:

i) the capital projects included in Appendix “C” BE CLOSED;

ii) the following actions be taken with respect to the funding associated with the capital projects approved for closure in d) i), above:

Rate Supported

A) pay-as-you-go funding of $58 thousand BE TRANSFERRED from capital receipts;

B) authorized but unissued debt financing of $113 thousand BE RELEASED from the capital budget; 

C) uncommitted reserve fund drawdowns of $1.3 million BE RELEASED back into the reserve funds which originally funded the projects;

Non-Rate Supported

D) uncommitted reserve fund drawdowns of $746 thousand BE RELEASED back into the reserve funds which originally funded the projects; and

E) other net non-rate supported funding sources of $281 thousand BE ADJUSTED in order to facilitate project closings.

Motion Passed

8.2.9   (4.1) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - London Run for Ovarian Cancer Week

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That based on the application from London Run for Ovarian Cancer, May 6 - 12, 2024 BE PROCLAIMED London Run for Ovarian Cancer Week.

Motion Passed

8.2.10   (4.2) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - 32nd Falun Dafa Day Anniversary Celebrations

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That based on the application dated April 4, 2024 from Falun Dafa Association Canada, May 13, 2024 BE PROCLAIMED 32nd Falun Dafa Day Anniversary Celebrations.

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (2.1) Expropriation of Lands - East London Link Project Phase 4 (Relates to Bill No. 134)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, and on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, approval BE GIVEN to the expropriation of land as may be required for the East London Link Project Phase 4, and that the following actions be taken in connection therewith:

a)    application be made by The Corporation of the City of London as Expropriating Authority to the Council of The Corporation of the City of London as approving authority, for the approval to expropriate the land required for the East London Link Project Phase 4;

b)    The Corporation of the City of London serve and publish notice of the above application in accordance with the terms of the Expropriations Act;

c)    The Corporation of the City of London forward to the Ontario Land Tribunal any requests for a hearing that may be received and report such to the Council of The Corporation of the City of London for its information; and

d)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 15, 2024 as Schedule “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Council meeting on April 23, 2024, to authorize the foregoing and direct the Civic Administration to carry out all necessary administrative actions.

Motion Passed (11 to 2)

8.2.7   (2.2) 2023 Year-End Operating Budget Monitoring Report

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Year-End Operating Budget Monitoring Report:

a)    the 2023 Year-End Operating Budget Monitoring Report for the Property Tax Supported Budget, Water Budget, and Wastewater and Treatment Budget BE RECEIVED for information. An overview of the net corporate positions are outlined below, noting that the year-end positions include the contributions listed in b) and c):

i)    Property Tax Supported Budget surplus of $28.0 million;

ii)   Water Rate Supported Budget surplus of $3.0 million;

iii)   Wastewater and Treatment Rate Supported Budget is balanced at year-end;

it being noted that the Property Tax, Water, and Wastewater & Treatment Budget surplus will be allocated in accordance with the Council approved Surplus/Deficit Policy;

b)    the contribution of year-end Property Tax Supported, Water Rate Supported and Wastewater and Treatment Rate Supported Budget surplus to the applicable Contingency Reserve in accordance with the Council approved Surplus/Deficit Policy BE RECEIVED for information:

i)    $9.7 million to the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve, noting the balance remains under its target;

ii)    $1.1 million to the Water Budget Contingency Reserve, noting the balance remains under its target;

iii)    $0.5 million to the Wastewater and Treatment Budget Contingency Reserve, noting the balance remains under its target;

it being noted that the contributions to the respective budget contingency reserves were made to replenish these reserves that were utilized to finance the 2023 cost of statutory development charges exemptions and discounts resulting from recent legislative changes that were otherwise unfunded;

c)    the request to fund the 2023 London & Middlesex Community Housing operational deficit of approximately $33 thousand BE APPROVED (see Appendix “B” of the staff report for Letter of Request).

Note: The reported year-end position is subject to completion of the 2023 financial statement audit;

it being further noted that the Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated April 11, 2024 from C. Butler with respect to this matter.

At 3:26 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor E. Peloza in the Chair. 

At 3:30 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the motion be amended to include the following:

it being noted that the Mayor be requested to use a one time draw of $3.5M from the Community Investment Reserve Fund to offset the 2025 increased tax rate.

Motion Failed (5 to 9)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, notwithstanding the Council Procedure By-law, the motion BE REFERRED to a future meeting of Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for consideration;

it being noted that the communication as appended to the Added Council Agenda, from the Board of Directions, London Convention Centre Corporation, operating as RBC Place London, with respect to this matter will also be referred to the future meeting of Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee.

Motion Failed (3 to 11)

At 3:49 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor E. Peloza in the Chair. 

At 3:51 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion be amended to include a new part d) to read as follows:

d)    the allocation of RBC Place London’s 2023 year-end surplus to the RBC London Place Renewal Reserve Fund ($250,000) and RBC Place London Operational Reserve ($158,769) BE APPROVED; it being noted that the communication as appended to the Council Agenda, from the Board of Directions, London Convention Centre Corporation, operating as RBC Place London, with respect to this matter was received.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion, without part d), as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That part d) of the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Item 7, clause 2.2, as amended, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Year-End Operating Budget Monitoring Report:

a)    the 2023 Year-End Operating Budget Monitoring Report for the Property Tax Supported Budget, Water Budget, and Wastewater and Treatment Budget BE RECEIVED for information. An overview of the net corporate positions are outlined below, noting that the year-end positions include the contributions listed in b) and c):

i)    Property Tax Supported Budget surplus of $28.0 million;

ii)   Water Rate Supported Budget surplus of $3.0 million;

iii)   Wastewater and Treatment Rate Supported Budget is balanced at year-end;

it being noted that the Property Tax, Water, and Wastewater & Treatment Budget surplus will be allocated in accordance with the Council approved Surplus/Deficit Policy;

b)    the contribution of year-end Property Tax Supported, Water Rate Supported and Wastewater and Treatment Rate Supported Budget surplus to the applicable Contingency Reserve in accordance with the Council approved Surplus/Deficit Policy BE RECEIVED for information:

i)    $9.7 million to the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve, noting the balance remains under its target;

ii)    $1.1 million to the Water Budget Contingency Reserve, noting the balance remains under its target;

iii)    $0.5 million to the Wastewater and Treatment Budget Contingency Reserve, noting the balance remains under its target;

it being noted that the contributions to the respective budget contingency reserves were made to replenish these reserves that were utilized to finance the 2023 cost of statutory development charges exemptions and discounts resulting from recent legislative changes that were otherwise unfunded;

c)    the request to fund the 2023 London & Middlesex Community Housing operational deficit of approximately $33 thousand BE APPROVED (see Appendix “B” of the staff report for Letter of Request).

d)    the allocation of RBC Place London’s 2023 year-end surplus to the RBC London Place Renewal Reserve Fund ($250,000) and RBC Place London Operational Reserve ($158,769) BE APPROVED; it being noted that the communication as appended to the Council Agenda, from the Board of Directions, London Convention Centre Corporation, operating as RBC Place London, with respect to this matter was received.

Note: The reported year-end position is subject to completion of the 2023 financial statement audit;

it being further noted that the Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated April 11, 2024 from C. Butler with respect to this matter.

8.3   6th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2024-04-09 - CWC Report

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 6th Report of the Civic Works Committee, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) 4th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on March 20, 2024:

a)    permission BE GRANTED by Municipal Council for the members of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee to tour the Transportation Management Centre; and,

b)    clauses 1.1, 2.1, 3.1 and 6.1 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) Contract Award RFT-2024-022 - Springbank Reservoir 2 Replacement and Expansion

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated April 9, 2024, related to Contract Award RFT-2024-022 Springbank Reservoir 2 Replacement and Expansion:

a)    the bid submitted by Stone Town Construction Limited at its tendered price of $43,032,902.00 (excluding HST) BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by Stone Town Construction Limited was the lowest of two bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)    Aecom Canada Ltd., BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the Springbank Reservoir 2 Replacement and Expansion project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $3,769,075.00, including 10% contingency, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

e)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done, relating to this project (RFT-2024-022); and,

f)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-F18)

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.3) Appointment of Consulting Engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated April 9, 2024, related to the Appointment of Consulting Engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program:

a)     the following consulting engineers BE APPOINTED to carry out consulting services for the identified Infrastructure Renewal Program funded projects, at the upset amounts identified below, in accordance with the estimate on file, and in accordance with Section 15.2(e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy:

i)    Spriet Associates London Limited BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the pre-design, and detailed design of Contract 5 – Craig Street from Ridout Street to Wortley Road, reconstruction, in the total amount of $182,579.10, including contingency, (excluding HST);

ii)    GM BluePlan Engineering Limited BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the pre-design, and detailed design of Contract 6 – Evangeline Street from Second Street to Third Street, and Third Street from Dundas Street to Culver Drive, reconstruction, in the total amount of $380,677.00, including contingency, (excluding HST);

iii)    Archibald, Gray & McKay Engineering Ltd. BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the pre-design and detailed design of Contract 8 – Central Avenue, from Elizabeth Street to Ontario Street, reconstruction, in the total amount of $292,600.00, including contingency, (excluding HST);

iv)    Dillon Consulting Limited BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the pre-design and detailed design of Contract 9 – Rectory Street, from Little Simcoe Street to Florence Street, reconstruction, in the total amount of $249,689.55,including contingency, (excluding HST);

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

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

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

e)     the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-F18)

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.4) Single Source - Adelaide Wastewater Treatment Plant Clarifier Drive Replacement

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated April 9, 2024, related to a Single Source for the Adelaide Wastewater Treatment Plant Clarifier Drive Replacement:

a)    the contract for supply and delivery BE AWARDED to Evoqua Water Technologies in the amount of $60,000.00 (excluding HST) as a single source award in accordance with Article 14.4.d of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

d)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project. (2024-F18)

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (2.5) Adelaide Street North Bridge over the Thames River Rehabilitation - Detail Design and Tendering Appointment of Consultant Engineer

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated April 9, 2024, related to the Adelaide Street North Bridge over the Thames River Rehabilitation Detail Design and Tendering Appointment of Consulting Engineer:

a)    Dillon Consulting Limited BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the detailed design and tendering in the amount of $250,350 (excluding HST) in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

d)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-F18)

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (2.6) Holtby Municipal Drain Petition and Request for Maintenance and Consultant Appointment

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That on the recommendation of Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated April 9, 2024, related to the Holtby Municipal Drain Petition and Request for Maintenance and Consultant Appointment:

a)    the petition for a New Branch and a Request for a Major Improvement to the Holtby Municipal Drain located in the area of Highbury and Glanworth Drive to benefit the drainage of 1510 Glanworth Drive, Township of Westminster BE ACCEPTED by the Council of The Corporation of the City of London under section 4 and 78 of the Drainage Act, and,

b)    Spriet Associates London Limited BE APPOINTED under section 4 and 78 of the Drainage Act.  (2024-E09)

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the Civic Works Committee Deferred Matters List, as at March 15, 2024, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4   8th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2024-04-16 SPPC Report 8

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 8th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 3 (2.1) and 5 (5.1).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.3) Kettle Creek Conservation Authority (KCCA) Appointment - Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, with respect to the appointment of one non-elected member to the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority (KCCA), the following actions be taken:

a)         the communication dated April 5, 2024, from the Honourable Graydon Smith, Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, granting an exception under the Conservation Authorities Act (CAA) from the requirement in subsection 14 (1.1) for at least 70 percent of municipal appointments to a conservation authority to be selected from among members of municipal council BE RECEIVED;

b)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to include applications on a future agenda of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, for consideration and recommendation of appointment of one member of the public to the KCCA;

it being noted that advertisement for the position be in the usual manner, including the City’s social media channels.

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.2) 9th Report of the Governance Working Group

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 9th Report of the Governance Working Group from its meeting held on March 25, 2024:

a)  the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 25, 2024 related to Council Members’ Expense Account Policy - Further Updates;

i) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to maintain status quo and fund ward meeting and engagement expenses from the Councillor expense account with Ward Option #1, as indicated in the above noted report; and

ii)  the staff report dated March 25, 2024 related to Council Members’ Expense Account Policy - Further Updates BE RECEIVED;

b)  the following actions be taken with respect to the report dated March 25, 2024 related to the General Policy for Community Advisory Committees:

i) the updated General Policy for Community Advisory Committees BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Governance Working Group;

ii) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to amend the following sections of the proposed policy;

A) section 4.3 with regard to reasonable timelines for advertising a mid-term vacancy on a Community Advisory Committee;

B) section 4.5 to schedule the presentation of applications for appointment to Community Advisory Committees at the end of Q1 after a new term of Council takes office;

C) section 4.19 to provide the City Clerk discretion with respect to placing a Community Advisory Committee agenda item(s) on an alternate Standing Committee agenda;

D) section 4.23 to provide for an alternate mechanism to process, resolve, and report complaints about members of Community Advisory Committees;

E) include language to clarify that Community Advisory Committees are permitted to invite members of the public to observe or participate as a guest speaker at Community Advisory Committee meetings; and

F) include language to state that where the General Policy for Community Advisory Committees or the proposed Simplified Procedures for Community Advisory Committees is silent, questions of procedure be deferred to the Council Procedure By-law:

iii) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to conduct an environmental scan and report back to the Governance Working Group with respect to the utilization of working groups and/or task forces; and

iv) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Governance Working Group with attendance metrics for the City of London’s Community Advisory Committee meetings;

c)  clauses 1.1 and 4.1 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (4.1) Targeted Actions to Increase London’s Housing Supply: Supporting Council’s Pledge for 47,000 Units by 2031

Motion made by S. Lewis

That on the recommendation of the Director of Planning and Development, the following actions are proposed regarding the Targeted Actions to Increase London’s Housing Supply:

a)    the report entitled “Targeted Actions to Increase London’s Housing Supply: Supporting Council’s Pledge for 47,000 Units by 2031,” as appended to the staff report as Appendix “A,” BE APPROVED;

b)    the staff report dated April 16, 2024, BE RECEIVED;

c)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to invite the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority to participate in the work of the Customer Service and Process Improvement Reference Group;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard delegations from M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute and J. Zaifman, CEO, London Home Builders’ Association with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (4.2) 3rd Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee from its meeting held on March 14, 2024:

a)   the Committee Clerk BE DIRECTED to place the following matters on the next agenda:

i) application requirements for the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee;

ii) potential interviews for top candidates; and,

iii) reviewing the Terms of Reference for the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee;

it being noted that the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee held a general discussion with respect to the above-noted matters;

b)    clauses 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 4.1 and 6.1 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.8   (4.3) Request for a Shareholder’s Meeting - London Hydro Inc.

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for London Hydro Inc.:

a)      the 2023 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for London Hydro Inc. BE HELD at a meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on May 28, 2024, for the purpose of receiving the report from the Board of Directors of London Hydro Inc. in accordance with the Shareholder Declaration and the Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16; and

b)      the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to provide notice of the 2023 Annual Meeting to the Board of Directors for London Hydro Inc. and to invite the Chair of the Board and the Chief Executive Officer of London Hydro Inc. to attend at the Annual Meeting and present the report of the Board in accordance with the Shareholder Declaration;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated March 28, 2024, from C. Graham, Chair, Board of Directors, London Hydro Inc., with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.1) Whole of Community System Response - Quarterly Update April

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the report dated April 16, 2024, regarding Whole of Community System Response – Quarterly Report, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

8.4.5   (5.1) Secondary School Student Transit Pass Pilot Project - Deputy Mayor S. Lewis and Councillor P. Cuddy

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to establishing a secondary school student transit pass pilot project:

a)  the Civic Administration in collaboration with the London Transit Commission BE DIRECTED to initiate the development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Thames Valley District School Board (TVDSB), for the purpose of partnering to deliver a pilot project to provide annual transit passes to secondary school students at Clarke Road Secondary School, including the following:

i) the pilot project BE LIMITED to school years beginning September 2024 for all Grade 9 students and September 2025 for all Grade 9 and 10 students attending Clarke Road Secondary School;

ii) the current post-secondary student annual transit pass agreements between the City of London, Western University and Fanshawe College and the current Children Under 12 Ride Free program BE CONSIDERED as templates to establish the framework for this pilot program; and

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to Council with the MOU, an appropriate source of financing, and metrics reporting for the pilot program;

it being noted that the TVDSB has written the Minister of Education to ask for consideration for provincial funding support for a bussing pilot. Additionally, continuing the program beyond the pilot project would require a permanent source of ongoing operating funding from a variety of sources, including reallocation of funding or funding from senior levels of government that would need to be investigated;

it being further noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard delegations from the following individuals with respect to this matter:

  •    L. Pizzolato, Trustee, Wards 1, 11, 12 and 14 and C. Lynd, Superintendent, Thames Valley District School Board; and

  •    D. Hendry, Get on the Bus - Co-Founder & Project Director.

Motion Passed (8 to 6)

At 4:25 PM, Councillor A. Hopkins leaves the meeting.

9.   Added Reports

9.1   8th Special Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2024-04-22 Special CSC Report 8

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That the 8th Special Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

9.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

9.1.2   (4.1) 2024 Debenture Issuance Update

Motion made by P. Cuddy

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

a)    the issuance of serial debentures for a total of $30,000,000 BE APPROVED, noting the average all-in rate is 4.427% over a 10-year term and that all debt has been placed with investors in the capital markets; and,

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 22, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on April 23, 2024 to execute the borrowing upon serial debentures in the aggregate principal amount of $30,000,000 towards the cost of certain capital works of the Corporation of the City of London.

Motion Passed

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

Councillor C. Rahman enquires with respect to the Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railway (CPKCR) train fire in the area of Richmond Street and Pall Mall Street.  The Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports and Deputy Fire Chief R. Hayes provides information about the emergency management response.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 124 to Bill No. 151, including Added Bill No. 126, and excluding Bill No.’s 132 and 134, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 124 to Bill No. 151, including Added Bill No. 126, and excluding Bill No.’s 132 and 134, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 94 and Bill No.’s 124 to Bill No. 151, including Added Bill No. 126, excluding Bill No.’s 132 and 134, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 132 and Bill No.152, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That Second Reading of Bill No. 132 and Bill No.152, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 2)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 132 and Bill No.152, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 2)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Trosow

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 134, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 2)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Franke

That Second Reading of Bill No. 134, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 2)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 134, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 2)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Franke

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 4:53 PM.

Appendix: New Bills

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (4 hours, 6 minutes)

Okay, thank you, please be seated. I’ll call to order the ninth meeting of City Council here on April 23rd. I will start with land acknowledgement. We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabak, Haudenosaunee, Lani Peiwak, and Adawandran peoples.

We honor respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous peoples who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area. Two real Wampumel Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Silver Covenant Chain, Beaver Hunting Grounds of the Haudenosaunee Nand fan treaty of 1701, the McKee Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, the Huron track treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabak and the Dish With One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabak and Haudenosaunee. Three indigenous nations that are neighbors to the London are the Chippewaas of the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and the Muncie Delaware Nation who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs.

The City of London is also committed to making every effort to providing alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact council agenda at London.ca 519-661-2489, extension 2425. And with that, it brings us to the National Anthem. After studying voice performance at the University of Toronto, Imogen Wass completed her bachelor’s degree at Western University in collaboration with Fanshawe’s Music Industry Arts Program where she was the recipient of the 2018 Female Vocalist of the Year Award.

Proud Londoner, Imogen performs in theatrical productions, music events, and festivals throughout London. She performs her own music with local indie band, The Sunshine Makers. Imogen proudly supports community arts organizations having worked with Sunfest and London Girls Rock Camp. Please rise and join me in welcoming Imogen, who will now sing the National Anthem.

(singing in foreign language) Okay, I’ll start off with disclosures of community interest. Go ahead, Councilor Roman. Thank you, I’ll be declaring conflict in the CSC report for item 2.1. Fanshawe’s my employer.

Yeah, any others? We have no recognitions today. Review of confidential matters to be considered in public. We have none, council closed session.

We don’t have any confirmation in signing at the minutes of previous meetings. We have the seventh meeting held April 2nd, 2024. I will look to mover in a seconder for the minutes. Moved by Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Pribble.

Any discussion on the minutes? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Councilor Stevenson, thank you. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to 0.

Right, communications and petitions. There are several which can all be referred to various parts of the agenda where they can be discussed. Look for a motion to do that. Moved by Councilor Hopkins, seconded by Councilor Palosa.

Any discussion on moving those? No, okay, we’ll open that for voting too. Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to 0. No motions to which notice was given.

So we’re on to reports. The first report is the Planning and Environment Committee. Councilor Lehman, I know you’re online. Do you have someone presenting for you?

Is it the vice chair? Okay, I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis then. Thank you, Your Worship. So I’m rising to present the sixth report of the Planning and Environment Committee.

I have seen amendments circulated by individuals on item five and item six. So I will move item one, two, three, four, and seven. Okay, Councilor Vameer-Bergam. Yeah, thank you, Mayor.

If you could call four, which is 3.2 separately, please, I’d like to vote on that separately. Okay, we can do that. Anything else, separate? So right now, four, five, and six are separate.

So one, two, and three, I’ll move to start. Okay, so you move all of those? Okay, that’s one, two, three, and seven are put on the floor by the vice chair for discussion, any discussion? Okay, seeing none, we can vote on those.

Those on the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. I’ll now put item four. This is 634, Commissioners Road West on the floor. Okay, moved, any discussion or comment?

Seeing none, we can open that for voting. Those on the vote, motion carries 13 to one. Right, go ahead. I will now put item five on the floor.

Item five is 735 Wonderland Road North. Right, item five is on the floor. I’ll look for any comments or questions or if there was an amendment circulated on that. There’s a couple, I guess, Councilor.

Okay, it’s Council, so you get to stand up. There are three that I know of. One from Councilor Raman and two from me. And I don’t know, the clerk has seen these.

I don’t know what order we should proceed. I don’t think any of these are contrary. Well, you’re standing up first, so you can proceed with yours. Okay, I’d like to add an additional condition for the site plan.

I’d like to add two additional conditions to the site plan approval authority. This is under section C of the recommendations. C3 to read Civic Administration is directed to consult with EMS regarding traffic mitigation measures in the vicinity as part of site plan approval. And that does have a second.

All right, you have a seconder for that? Yes, Councilor for Robert. Okay, so that’s moved and seconded. Just give me one second.

Okay, go ahead with your rationale, Councilor. The rationale for this is as I was asking about at the PEC, it has come to my attention that the EMS facility, which is located directly in back of the proposed site of Swiss chalet, did not receive notice of this application. I think this is due to the fact that the notice went to the owner, which is he stamped, that owns the property. And I spoke directly with the director and they did not receive the notice.

And I think that that raises a huge problem with notices in general, but particularly when there’s a fire station or an EMS station, I think that we need to do a lot better about consulting with them about any potential traffic concerns, especially if we know that the traffic in the area is contentious. So I’m moving that as part of site plan approval, the administration consult with the EMS and any recommendations that they have regarding traffic mitigation measures should be incorporated into the site plan approval. That’s my first one. Are you just moving these one at a time, right, Councilor?

Okay, okay. So you’ve stood up, you haven’t spoken to it, you’ve just moved an amendment to the main. So regardless of what happens with this, you’ll have an opportunity to move the other ones, dealing with them separately, which really makes the most sense. We’re just because the clerk put up two, I’m just having that cleaned up, so only the first amendment to something.

Okay. Yes. So your worship, I didn’t want to interrupt the council while he was providing his rationale. This is a first of all point of order though on process.

Be consistent, I believe that we do not direct civic administration at site plan authority. We request site plan authority to consider, which is consistent with the language in planning and environment committee reports across the gamut of applications. So first, I think that that language needs to be altered. It’s not directed, it’s that site plan authority be asked to consider.

So I’m gonna just ask for people’s consensus, like this is how we always do it. Assuming there’s no objections, we’re not gonna go through the whole amend this and move it around. That’s what we actually do is, so if there’s no objections, we’ll change the language the same way that we say it all the time. Okay, great.

And we’ll do that on any future ones that you have. So I agree, the clerks agree, that’ll get changed, it’ll be updated shortly. Go ahead. Okay, second, through you, you worshiped to our staff.

Well, the public notice may have been directed to the property owner, would not EMS, along with organizations like Upper Thames, London Hydro, others have had a transportation circulation to provide them opportunity to comment on any transportation consideration. I know that that has been used before in other applications, minor variances, even where an application is put out for comment and our agencies have an opportunity to do so. So I wanna ask if this has already happened through an internal process versus the public notification process, ‘cause that matters to me. If we’ve done it once, then I’m satisfied.

If we haven’t done it through an internal process, then I could support where the council is coming from. Go ahead. - Through you, Your Worship, in terms of the notification, internal or otherwise, there is signage on the property. So people would be familiar with an application coming forward.

I don’t have the answer specifically if EMS was contacted internally. We do contact multiple agencies as a separate circulation list, as well as the public. All right, any other speakers to this amendment? Councillor Ferro?

  • Thank you, through you. So I’m seconding this motion, just because I have also concerns with the congestion that we’ll see there and how that will impact EMS in the area. I use this area quite frequently myself for my groceries or for any of the amenities that are available, and I try to avoid that stretch between Sarnia and that stretch of Wonderland between Sarnia and Beaver Brook as much as I can, because I know that that is very congested itself. So I can only imagine how EMS, you know, right in the middle of everything, having to go to a call would be affected too.

So I’m in full support of this motion. That’s why I’m seconding it. And that’s all I have to add to that. I don’t have any other speakers.

So that meant you’re, you already spoke, so. Can I answer this question again? I think he got his answer from staff that they don’t know. So I believe what the Councillor said is he, he could get there if he got his answer.

I think he’s got his answer, he’s nodding. So I think we’re good. So I don’t see any other speakers. We’ll open this for a moment on the amendment.

Close in the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Go ahead, Councillor. Oh, sorry, first, the as amended.

You’re willing to move the as amended. Yeah, okay. So same mover. We’re now on an as amended motion.

Councillor Trovesau, you wanted to go again. A civic administration is requested, requested. To study the issue of filtered permeability with respect to mitigating the effects of cut through traffic, resulting from the opening of Beaverbrook Avenue and Westfield Drive. This item should, I say also, but I think I would delete the word also here because the other motion that’s coming up later has not been introduced yet.

So also is confusing. This item should be added to a future civic works committee agenda. So colleagues will notice, although the Councillor said, cycling authority be requested. This is actually adding into the part of the motion already that has that context within it.

So it doesn’t need to say it here. It’s getting actually added into the piece that has an intro that says, you know, information for the site plan authority to consider. So that’s moved. Look for a seconder on that.

Councillor Hopkins is willing to second. Now you could provide some debate if you want, Councillor. And thank you for the floor to the chair. One of the most significant issues that came up throughout not only this application process, but also what I’ve heard from people with respect to the adjacent ISAM development project is the effects that we’re going to see in terms of cut through traffic.

An additional traffic that’s not accounted for in the traffic study as a result of the opening of Beaverbrook and the opening of Westfield. Now I tried to draft this in a way that is not a general area traffic study. I wanted to keep this very specific at this site plan level to this particular application. So what I’m asking for is this to be very focused with respect to the effect that people coming through Westfield and Beaverbrook could potentially have on the area right in front of the project, which is the corner of Beaverbrook and Horizons and that general facility.

I think this is necessary because the problem with the traffic study, as I see it, is that it did not take into account in any way cumulative impacts resulting from other projects. And while the breaking through of Westfield and Beaverbrook is not part of this particular project, the city council and the planning staff and the traffic staff are well aware of the proposal to break through Westfield and Beaverbrook. And we are on notice that that is something that is going to be happening in the area. I don’t know if this project will go up before those streets are constructed.

I would like to ask staff if I could. What is your best estimate as to when Westfield and Beaverbrook will be, for lack of a better word, broken through? Go ahead for your worship. In terms of the application, we are in a process of a public process for the plan of subdivision that I believe you’re speaking about in terms of Beaverbrook and Westfield.

However, in terms of the site plan review as part of this 735 Wonderland Road, we’re prejudicing an outcome of a separate application, planning act application. And I don’t think, thank you. And I don’t think it’s speculative for me to predict that under this application, Westfield and Beaverbrook are going to be open because I’ve been told by others that this is part of the plan all along. And I think that it is essentially not really doing an adequate job in terms of trying to determine what the actual on the ground, on the ground, traffic of impacts, coming out of the corner of Horizon and Beaverbrook and also going into 1241 of Beaverbrook and also proceeding down towards Wonderland.

I don’t think it’s speculative at all to foresee this as something that is very, very certainly in the future. I cannot imagine a scenario where this is not going to happen. And I have had several meetings. I have attempted to have more meetings with staff.

As staff knows, we had a meeting in December. I’ve had several side conversations with members of traffic, with members of planning, about my concern, about what is going to happen when I’ll call it Westfield, Beaverbrook, becomes a through street. Beaverbrook ends at Proudfoot and it begins again at Oxford. It’s going to go all the way through and it’s going to be met at Westfield, which is the end of Cherry Hill.

It is immediately after 201 Westfield Drive, which is part of the Cherry Hill development. So I think that if we really want to get to the bottom, if we really want to understand what the traffic conditions are going to be like on Beaverbrook between Proudfoot and Wonderland, we have to take this into account. We have to take this into account. Otherwise, we are cutting off a very significant portion of the future traffic that is going to impact the residents and the businesses and the EMS and the funeral home and everyone else involved in this neighborhood.

So I think that this is an appropriate motion. I think ultimately there has to be a broader area plan that deals with traffic. Now, I am not moving a holding provision. 30 seconds, Councillor.

I am not moving that this be stopped pending the preparation of a full area plan. I have tried to do this in the most minimalist way and I thought that doing that would be to put it through site plan approval. At the same time, I do think that this is something that we want. We have to have the Civic Works Committee look at ‘cause it’s about the construction of our streets.

So I’m going to be asking for Councillors to support this second C4 by filtered permeability. There are a number of different ways. Councillor, your time’s up. Doing that and thank you very much.

Okay, Councillor Hopkins. Yes, Your Worship, I second this and I’m supportive of this amendment going forward. I think we’re gonna have another amendment going forward dealing with traffic. There is no secondary plan here.

I think any development in this area going forward, having civic administration look at or considering ways to mitigate cut-through traffic or any kind of traffic. There’s nothing wrong with doing that through the site plan process. So I’m hoping my colleagues can support this area that is so congested on the Costco shopper. I know this area quite well and it’s only going to get more congested as we see more development coming through, which is great.

But we do really need to understand how movement works and I don’t see it really prejudism. Any application that’s going forward just looking at site-specific applications going forward to consider it. So hoping you could support it. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Your Worship. So on this one, I will be an unequivocal, no. And it comes down to a couple of very specific things. First of all, as we heard from our Director of Planning, this does prejudice the outcome of a future application that this road opening is not part of this planning application process for this site-specific plan.

So we are attaching something to a site plan for zoning that is not related to the actual work that’s being undertaken by this developer. Further to that, I believe that if the Councillors want a staff to produce a report on filtered permeability for traffic mitigation, that should come through a motion at civic works specifically, not be attached to a motion from Planning Committee on a site-specific application. And I think that that is the way to undertake a report on filtered permeability for any area, not just for this one project. I really think that we’re missing what our role is under the Planning Act in approving this application for a zoning change to start attaching conditions that are related to another application.

So, and really, I think that this is one that site plan approval authority would have to say, there’s not much we can consider here because it’s not related to this application. So I cannot support this one. The previous one for EMS hearing that we didn’t know whether it had been circulated or not. Very easy for me to support that because if they haven’t gotten it, they should have, and they should have had an opportunity to comment.

And much like some of the discussion that we had at Planning Committee itself, a more appropriate place for filtered permeability to be considered is when the secondary plan for this area is undertaken and moves forward, not attaching it to a particular application. Okay, other speakers to the amendment. That exhausts the amendment speakers list. Do you see it before you?

I’m gonna open it for voting. Opposed on the vote. Motion fails four to 10. Okay, so we’re still on the as amended motion with the change that added the EMS piece.

Councilor Trossau, you were speaking to that when you moved the amendment. Are you looking to continue speaking or? I think that the other one, just use your microphone, please. I think that the other one comes all the way at the end of the motion and might be better to defer this until later, although I can speak to it now.

I’ll just say, right now you’re speaking to an as amended motion. Then you try to another amendment. So if you’re making some other change now’s the time, otherwise you’re gonna get caught in this spot that if it doesn’t get amended again, I’m gonna say you’ve already spoken to this piece once. So if you’re making another change now’s the time, ‘cause I don’t wanna put you in a spot where you can’t make a change later, so.

Okay, very well, thank you for that. It’s good advice. I’m going to now put on the floor the next portion of my amendment, which is delete the text. In the final, it being further noted clause, including the four bullets, these are one page five of the Planning Committee report, and the final paragraph.

It being further noted that Council approves the application for the following reasons. I think that these are not valid reasons. I don’t think that the reasons, and I’m speaking to the merits of this now. I don’t want you to speak to the merits of it until I get you a seconder.

Okay, you have a seconder, so go ahead. Yes, sure, go ahead. So you’re worship pursuant to the Planning Act, and it being noted a clause prepared by civic administration for this report in support of a recommendation is required to be passed as part of the zoning approval. We cannot delete a clause that indicates the reasons being provided in this report.

So it is actually my position that this is out of order. So I’m the chair and I’m making a ruling, but I just want to get advice from the clerks. Sometimes I get advice from legal too. That’s kind of awkward because you’re across the room, so I just wanted to get your advice.

This is advice just to me as I make a ruling, so I want to hear our lawyers’ advice on this as well. Thank you, and through your worship, Section 34 of the Planning Act does require a brief explanation, so that is why that information would have been included in the original version. I have enough information now, so I will rule the amendment out of order. It’s, we require reasons under the Planning Act as is the advice that the clerk gave me, as well as the solicitor.

So although we’ve been seconded now on the floor and now that I’ve read it, I’m not going to entertain proceeding with this because it would be counter to the rules required to follow. So you can challenge the chair if you’d like on that, but I’m gonna rule that this is not a ballot amendment based on our requirements under the Act. Councillor, you want to challenge? The reason I want to, yes, I want to challenge, because you don’t need this language, you need some language, but the language, if this is voted down and I see nodding from the planning staff, if this is voted down, there could be other substitute language put in.

That’s correct, and when this has been done in the past, Councillor, there’s been, we’re leading this, we’re adding this, it’s contained within a motion. If this were to pass, and then a subsequent motion failed, we would be out of compliance, so a more consolidated motion would have been fine. Just a motion deleting pieces is not fine. So it’s out of order, if you want to challenge me, you can, but that’s my ruling because there’s nothing else attached to this motion that says what you’re saying.

Well, can I add some language that would be more focused? No, you’ve moved this and it’s seconded, I’ve ruled the debt of order, it’s no longer on the floor. You could proceed with making an amendment now, if you’d like, but that one never made it to the floor, it’s out of order, so you can either challenge that in loud to go for the floor, or you can proceed with the next amendment that they can make, even if it’s like this, and what you’re just about to say. But the quickest path to moving forward is, my ruling is you can’t do this without putting reasons on.

Okay, in which case I’ll just make an amendment to say in that it being acknowledged, and I’ll make this really short, because I was prepared to go through each one of these boards and explain why I think it’s a very perilous legal position for us to be taking. But I’ll limit it to the last paragraph, it being acknowledged in any and all oral and written submissions. Let’s say, Councillor, just for a second, your motion was out of order. You’re still speaking on the as amended motion.

Yes. If you want to make another amendment, you need to tell me what that is. I’ll seek a seconder, and then you can provide your rationale. Right now you’re providing rationale to an amendment that is on FIS’s council, so it’s a little more formal than committee, so you either speak to the as amended motion that we had that has already been approved, or you make another amendment now with the time that you have left, but you don’t just speak to an amendment that doesn’t exist right now.

Okay, I would then move to distract the words taken into consideration of unbalanced, taken into consideration by council as part of its deliberations, because I think that the overall gist of what we heard from the public was contrary to this. This is, there was, not only was there substantial evidence on the record. Okay, Councillor, you get to provide your rationale in one second. Let me just, I understand your amendment now.

You want to strike everything after the comma that taken into consideration by council. You want to strike that? Give me a sec. So my understanding of the act is that we have to listen to the public, and we have to explain that we, how they have impacted or not the decisions that we’re putting forward.

So this is the clause, the if being noted clause recognizes that there was a public participation meeting, and we have a motion that committee has approved. So fortunately, Councillor, I can’t, I’m not going to allow you to strike that piece. One, the sentence doesn’t make sense anymore. And two, it’s what happened at committee.

Like, well, you can disagree whether every single person’s comment was listened to, but it was taken into account, whether listened to or not on each individual’s section. That’s what occurred. I’m not going to entertain a motion to strike that from the committee’s recommendation, because it is a factual piece of what occurred, and it’s also a required acknowledgement of the process that happened under the act from my understanding, which I see nods from our staff. So I also believe this amendment is not valid, so I’m not going to allow it to go on the floor either.

On the third bullet point, I’d like to amend the third bullet point to say the recommended amendment does not, I want to add the word does not, facilitate the development of a site within the built area boundary, and primary transit area with an appropriate form of infill development, adding quote, without further traffic and transit analysis. So funny. No cross talk. Listen, Councillor, before I can even decide on this, I actually need the language that you said.

Like, you want to replace the third bullet point with something else, so you want to amend the third bullet point to read a different way. That’s what you’re trying to get, but use your microphones so everybody can hear. Instead of facilitates, I would say, do not facilitate. At the end, without further traffic and transit analysis.

Councillor, committee made a recommendation. This is part of the rationale that the committee made for the recommendation. Switching the rationale from positive to a negative is counter to the committee’s decision that’s come before us. So I can’t allow you to do that.

It’s absolutely contrary to what the committee forwarded to council, so that’s also not an amendment you can make. It’s counter to the committee’s decision. It’s part of their rationale for the decision they made. So that’s not a lot.

In that case, I’ll dispense with the other ones, which would be of similar form, and I understand from your ruling that the appropriate way for me to proceed would be to vote against the amendment, and if that fails, take it from there. Thank you, Councillor. So where we are is— Thank you, I appreciate that. I have, so on the as amended motion, which was the original committee recommendation of the change to the EMS that was successfully added to it.

I now have Councillor Stevenson next on the speaker’s list, and then Councillor. Oh, Councillor Roman, do you have your hand up before? Oh, okay. Councillor Stevenson, was it on the amendment we were just talking about?

‘Cause I had Councillor Ramen on a list one back, and then when I saw your hand, it was on that amendment, so. It’s okay, I voted incorrectly on the last one, and I was looking to correct it, but it’s okay, I’m just gonna let it go. Oh, okay. Well, it’s on the public record now about that, so people will know that that was your— Yes, I meant to vote no.

Okay, thank you. Okay, excellent, I’ll go to Councillor Roman now. Thank you, and through you, Chair. So my amendment would read that it be further noted that through this application, residents, business owners, and community members raised concerns about ongoing traffic issues, movement of ambulances, and the need for traffic planning in this area to address increased density from development planned in the West London area, and that this item should be included in future MMP reports to CWC that discuss transit, road network, and active transportation planning for West London.

All right, do you have a seconder for that? Okay, you got a seconder. All right, do you wanna provide some rationale then? Yeah, thank you.

I voted against this at committee, 735 Wonderland Road North, mostly because I couldn’t contend with the lived reality in the area regarding the traffic, and then the discussion around adding increased density, as well as knowing that there are other potential applications coming forward that will also increase density. So with that in mind, I wanted to find a way forward where it would be possible to have this information go to CWC for discussion, and trying to navigate that process between committees and how we can then send something to another committee that’s dealing with a related issue, I think is something that we need to smooth out. But one of the things we heard also at that meeting as we were hearing the concerns from residents is that in order for their feedback to be heard into the MMP process, they would actually need to really submit that again. Although there is, there were staff there and staff were willing to take that feedback and we’re hearing that feedback, it also needs to continue to flow into the MMP as we continue that discussion.

So I’m hoping that this allows for a place for those conversations to be heard and that residents, area business owners, and those that we heard from including EMS in the consultation piece, will have that opportunity as this continues to move forward at CWC through our MMP reports. The thing I was really trying to grapple with was whether or not outside of doing a secondary plan, is there a way to do a transportation planning exercise that then considers all of the applications that are current as well as some that are perhaps coming and what’s to come in the area so that the planning can be done from a traffic perspective. And I know we talk just now about the permeability issue and I’m hoping that based on the discussion, this is part of what will be discussed at CWC. So again, I think we have an avenue to do this work to hear from residents effectively, but in order to do that, we need to ensure that we’re within our own processes, finding ways to move these items onto agendas.

Okay, I’ll look for speakers on this amendment. Go ahead, Deputy Marlous. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you again, while I appreciate where the Council is trying to go, I will not be supporting this, because once again, we’re trying to tie an overall traffic transportation issue to one single planning application on one property in the area. We know that there are multiple properties that are potentially under development or have already had approved zoning.

I’m aware of one slightly to the west of Wonderland Road that was approved a year, a year and a half ago. The Loose Track Planning Committee meetings come all the time, but I know there was a significant number of units approved there as well. But by taking one item from one PEC agenda and saying included in MMP reports, I don’t think actually really addresses it and I don’t want us to also start down the slope of we’re gonna refer every PEC report to the MMP. I think, again, the appropriate discussion here is for a motion to come forward at Civic Works to address how the MMP is looking at the overall transportation issue in West London, separate and standalone from this planning application.

I don’t think that we can be tying a Civic Works review of transportation and traffic issues to a planning application, and I think that if we try to do so, we’re actually setting ourselves up for and not necessarily on this file, but on future files. We could be setting ourselves up for some significant challenges, including ones that may go to the OLT if we start trying to impose certain conditions. Now, in this particular language, I’m not sure that that would actually be the case, but I’m concerned if we start tying this to one planning agenda item that we are going to start having to do this every council meeting and what the MMP team is going to get is piecemeal one at a time as their zoning is approved instead of letting them take a look at the overall picture at a snapshot in time and addressing it from there, because right now they will get this one, and then next week there’s another planning committee meeting and they may get another one at that council cycle, and then another one at the following council cycle, and for the MMP team, I don’t think that’s fair to be sending them stuff that way either, so that’s why I won’t be supporting this. I’m looking for other speakers on this.

Go ahead, Councillor Ferrer. Thank you. I will be speaking to the main motion, I guess, but I do want to say that I will be supporting this just because it’s more palatable for me, especially considering that everything was mentioned, so just keeping in short, I will be in support of this amendment, and I will have some further things to say on the main. Okay, Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you, I just wanted to quickly thank the deputy mayor for his comments, that was helpful, thank you. Okay, other speakers, Councillor Chose. I think, thank you to the chair. I think everything the deputy mayor said would be much more palatable to me if we first had an area plan.

We don’t have an area plan, and that’s the floor. And the question has to be the policy question that we have to be raising, and yes, it’s gonna intersect with this application. It has to, and yes, it’s gonna intersect with the next application that comes up. It’s already been said for a public participation meeting, and yes, it’s gonna intersect with other applications in the area that have not yet been set for public participation meetings.

The fact of the matter is, we can’t make these cumulative traffic transit issues go away. And the fact that we do not have an area plan to guide us in an overall matter, makes it all the more imperative that we look at these questions in each individual application. Now, the specter of an appeal has been raised, and I don’t think it’s enough to come in here and say, well, if you look at this additional set of considerations, that may lead to an appeal. If you don’t do that, it may lead to an appeal.

‘Cause quite frankly, I think this record is very weak in terms of supporting some of the claims that are being made, and what the counselor is trying to do here, and what I attempted to do through my amendments, was to at least try to provide some semblance of planning rationality to this overall decision that we’re making. The fact of the matter is, this application, as well as the other applications that I’ve seen along this corridor, are basing their zone change of the planning plan, official plan status amendments on the notion of a transit village. And the question the public keeps asking, and I think it’s a question I keep asking, is where’s the transit village? And I think the only way we’re gonna be able to answer that question is by asking the types of broader inquiries that Councillor Ramen is trying to make through her motion.

So I think that her motion in a way could save this whole thing. Now, I think that basically what I’m hearing is we want to put blinders on, just like the horse. Blinders, just like the horse. And we don’t wanna look at anything else.

We just wanna look at this particular application. But you see, when you have traffic going down, for example, Beaverbrook, you cannot put those blinders on. You need to take into account everything else that’s happening in the area. And again, if we had the benefit of an area plan, which we don’t, a lot of these questions will have already been answered.

So I think it’s quite appropriate to ask for assistance from one of our city committees, especially in light of the fact that it is indisputable, indisputable, that these issues are tied in with the mobility master plan. So I think having another committee meeting, having another committee who has primary jurisdiction over the mobility master plan makes a lot of sense. Now, my preference would be to just stop this and do an area plan. And I was told that’s not feasible.

But I think that Councillor Ramen’s motion is very sensible and we should adopt it. It’s not everything I would like to see and I still worry about the timing, but I think it’s better than what’s on the table. So I’ll urge everybody, please support this motion. And I really wanna thank Councillor Ramen for coming forward with this.

Thank you. Councillor Lehman. Thank you for recognizing me, Chair. I just wanna remind committee when discussions for the widening of Wonderland Road between Spring Bank and Sarnia Road were on, we passed motion, my motion actually, to specifically include that stretch of road, which includes this Beaverbrook Wonderland intersection that I was told by staff.

The only solution there would be to widen Wonderland. Unfortunately, that was delayed. But I included in the master mobility plan is direction to specifically address this stretch of road. I understand the concerns of the Councillors are speaking for this motion.

However, I agree with the deputy mayor in that it’s a dangerous slope to tie it to a specific application. There’s concerns raised, but we don’t have a plan for this area. Well, we might council that we don’t have a secondary plan yet completed for Wellington Gateway. And that’s where we do have transit going up and a lot of development is coming that way.

So if we are gonna start delaying projects just because we don’t have a secondary plan, again, it’s just, it’s going to lay us building homes quite frankly. The master mobility plan is coming with specific direction to this specific area. So I cannot support this at this moment. Now, this doesn’t preclude the Councillor from making a motion at Civic Works for, you know, on this type of vein of action.

I just don’t think at this particular point with this particular application, it’s the right way to go. So I won’t be supporting it. Okay, and Councillor ramen who presented her motion, but was strategic and didn’t speak to it, wants to be on the list now. So she can speak next.

Thank you and through you. So I just want to clarify to start that there’s no hold up in this application based on it being a further noted clause that would relate to referring something to a committee. It’s just a structural move to show a link between the decision making that we’re doing at planning and then following through from there to council to committee. And the main reason for this again is it shows the public that the information they’re providing in the public participation meetings that take place alongside public, the applications, is valid, that we’re hearing what they’re saying and we’re finding the right avenue to steer that conversation so that there is connectivity between what we’re doing to intensify the city and what we’re doing to move around the city.

So I personally, again, was trying to reflect that. We pride ourselves on being a collaborative council. We pride ourselves on our ability to think outside of the box in how we address issues. What I’ve seen us have some reluctance on where I’d like to see us work more hand in glove is on being able to have these conversations between committees when we’re working on things.

So it’s not as siloed. And unfortunately, in my opinion, this siloing is having an impact on how the community perceives how we’re planning the city. They do not see that there is a collaborative move to address our intensification targets and our mobility plan. And I think that we need to give people that surety.

So again, this is a way to bring this back to an agenda of CWC with some of the commentary that we heard. Yes, it’s attached to an application, but it’s not stopping anything to do with the application. It’s more a directive note. And I think that we should be able to make those notes so that the public see where we’re going.

Absolutely, I have no issue going to CWC and having further dialogue on this. But we need to start somewhere with saying we hear you and we’re addressing your concerns. And it’s going to be here. And it’s going to happen at this committee where we’re going to have further discussion of how we’re building out this area and how we’re going to move around this area.

So that was the intention here. There is no hold up. And again, I asked Council to consider the opportunity to bring this up on a future agenda for CWC. Okay, I have myself an excellent list.

So I’m going to have Councilor Palosa, Chair. Thank you, I have the Chair recognizing Mary Morgan. There we go, appreciate the debate and discussion so far. I want to pick up off of where Councilor Layman left.

Not that I necessarily am going to vote the same way as him on this, but I think he brought up some good previous context that assists in this decision making. It can feel like things are very siloed and especially given the time frame between different directions that Council has provided on matters in this area. Councilor Layman mentioned specifically an item that was referred into the Master Mobility Plan about foregoing the widening of Wonderland Road to take a look on a more holistic perspective, the transit needs of that area, as well as the pinch points and the congestion pieces, particularly in the more tighter area around that particular transit village. And I’ll say it is a transit village.

So anybody wanting to know where the transit village comes from, it’s in the London Plan. It’s very clearly in the London Plan. It’s anticipated that you’re respective of the current iteration of the rapid transit network, that these are areas of transit convergence and density and places that are growing. So the other decisions that have been made along this is through a motion actually that Councilor Layman, Councilor Hopkins and I made that went to the rapid transit implementation working group that was approved by SPBC and then referred to the Master Mobility Plan was looking at higher order transit servicing this transit village, as well as one associated with the transit village at Masonville, those things are contained within the Master Mobility Plan, which is why this is not actually, in my opinion, anything new.

The newness is that was done a while ago. I think area residents don’t know that that was put in there. They’ve raised some concerns that is relevant to the consideration of those adjustments within the Master Mobility Plan. And so recognizing their contributions and finding a place for them, aligning with previous decisions we made, I don’t have a huge objection to.

The other thing we decided to was from a strategic standpoint based on staff’s capacity was we reordered the way that we were doing the secondary plans. So it’s not that we aren’t going to do a secondary plan for this, but the Wellington Gateway was a prioritization given the build out of that particular part of the network. So that has, of course, benefits and consequences. We’re seeing in some of the concerns, the consequences of that, the benefits will be on the Wellington Gateway side of things, which we see another massive potential for upscaling of development there, including the purchase of them all and the desire to build residential density there.

So I think we’re moving all of these pieces actually together. I think we struggle based in the timeframe and based on previous decisions on having them feel all linked together in the same way. But this is why we have to be very cautious and I know council has done it once and I support the democratic decision-making of council. We delayed the mass mobility plan to take some other considerations into play.

Every time we do that, we’re slowing down all of these considerations and coming to a conclusion about what that’s going to look like and all the decisions that will have to make the stem from that based on transit and all modes of transportation in an area like the one we’re talking about. So I think we have all the pieces of the puzzle together. It doesn’t feel like they’re together. I think what Councillor Ramen’s trying to do here is say to residents, you gave some concern.

There’s a place for this. In fact, there’s actually previous council decisions and motions that say we’re going to consider these things. So we just got to land it in a different spot so that you can see that it’s landing there. The fact that it’s it being further noted actually doesn’t give a lot of weight or directionality to the motion.

It’s a recognition I think as was just described that we hear the public and we’re considering these items in a space where we know we’re already having a discussion. So I don’t know if that additional context was helpful for colleagues. I know that it kind of feels like a very divided thing, but I actually think that there’s a lot of alignment with previous decision making. And I think our true and honest desire to let the public know that although we may proceed with these sorts of intensified developments, we are thinking about the overall impacts and we’ve got a place for that.

And we have to really ensure that we land the mass mobility plan as soon as possible so that we can actually see the complete picture of what mobility looks like, not just in this area, but across the city. Thank you. I return the chair to Mayor Morgan. Okay.

Other speakers on this amendment. Dean Nunn will open the amendment, which was moved by Council Roman, seconded by Council Droughts, out for voting. Closing the vote, motion fails six to eight. So we’re on the same as amended motion as before.

A good number of people have spoken to it. Is there other speakers to the as amended motion? Councilor Ferri, you have not spoken to this part yet. So go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor. So I appreciate the discussion that we’ve had so far and watching the PEC committee. I thought that was a very good debate. I thought some real aspects were brought up, good details and just really receiving feedback from the community who lives in the area though.

I really appreciated that. I do hear that it’s a primary transit area that’s really of concern and that was my concern originally at first when I was looking at that. I feel like, you know, especially with what we saw with the bullet points and removing that, I would like to see us build and reference provincial policy statements or whatever policy with real aspects of what’s actually on the ground. So, you know, we’re using the transit place type to, you know, increase the intensity there.

And I would say above and beyond what the transit place type allows for 22 stores we’re asking for 25. I feel like that just kind of doesn’t make sense to me, which, you know, seeing with Councilor Roman’s motion, that would have got me a little bit closer to the approval of this application. But basically I have those basic concerns. You know, it’s a 25 story above the 22 story, referencing the transit village, or the transit village place type, but not necessarily having the transit village in the area.

I’m concerned with the residential part, 219 residential units coming off of Horizon Drive. If you ever go to Horizon Drive, that is constantly, constantly involved with congestion and traffic. It’s very hard to move through there, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s peak time or not, for a lot of portions of the day. If you look at the entire amount of units itself, 272 units, you see that I see issues with, you know, the connection coming off of Wonderland, the connection going on to Beaverbrook, cut through traffic possibilities that could happen there.

And again, it goes back to the transit village place type. We don’t necessarily have that. The big issue that I have is, you know, as it was kind of referenced, we have applications coming in the future that are using the same type of policy to increase the intensity. 530 Oxford Street has the same thing.

That’s 33 stories above the 22 stories. And actually on the planning notice application, it does make reference that the transit village place type, fronting a rapid transit corridor on the main street uses that language in the notice of application. So I’m just concerned with how we’re using, you know, what we have on paper to intensify. And it just, that’s what’s kind of holding me on that.

And that’s what’s holding me back. I do like to see the work coming to civic works, possibly with this motion. I really think that we need to start building in a way where we’re just a little bit ahead of catching up to the development that’s already happening. So at this moment, I’m not necessarily in favor of voting for this application.

And I’m gonna be voting it down. I was really hoping that we could get some of the amendments on the floor to carry me over that. But just looking at that, and what we have on 530 Oxford Street, at this time, what we’ll be coming to assume, I just can’t carry my vote with that considering the realities on the ground. So thank you.

Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, and through the chair, I just wanted to say my comments on this. I heard loud and clear when I was campaigning. And since then, that people need housing.

They need access to housing for them, for the people that they love, for the people that they know. And it affects the affordability. And so I have voted to support developments in my ward, despite certain concerns. And there always are concerns.

And I really think that we need to, or I will be continuing to support development opportunities in this city. And we get to work on, I believe, you know, work on other aspects of our transportation and infrastructure and certain other things that are causing concern. But I will definitely be supporting this. And that as I have the ones in my ward as well.

Other speakers. I put myself in the speakers list. I just had to confer with the clerk on something. I’ll have Councilor Plow’s a chair again.

Thank you. I have the chair. Okay, I’ll be a little quicker this time. I appreciate the dialogue.

I’ll support the application. I did support the amendment, but I appreciate that it didn’t pass. I just, I want to be clear through the presiding officer. It’s not helpful for members of Council to say, a place type doesn’t exist that actually does exist.

This is a transit village. There are four transit villages. Transit village is our plan for intensifying in that area in a way that aligns with our official plan. Map one of the place types shows exactly where they are.

They have defined boundaries. And it’s very clear that this is a transit village. You can say we don’t have enough transit there. And the mass mobility plan and the work that’s being done there can help resolve that problem through the work that we’ve done and all the referrals we’ve made into it.

But these are transit villages in the city. They are areas where transit already is consolidated. There are areas where we know they’re going to grow. That is our plan to actually densify these areas across the city.

And by the way, a secondary plan where we’ve used them before actually is not in making more intensity. In the Masonville case, it actually incorporated the smoothing of the density around the edges where it was potentially going to create challenges with the existing neighborhoods based on the topography there. Not every transit village has that challenge. Right now, there’s just a flat upscale of density to a certain level.

There’s going to be places within these areas where more density might be desirable and less. In the absence of us having that, the official plan says lots of density here and this is a transit village. And so I don’t see anything within this application that doesn’t align with that sort of decision making. I recognize that counselors are concerned about challenges and there are challenges in this area and every other area of the city that is growing from a congestion, livability, services in the area, all of the things and all of the challenges that a growing city has, right?

So we’re going to work on those together. In this case, I support this particular development but I just wanted to state clearly for the record that this is a transit village according to our approved official plan. It’s a place of density. It’s a place of focus for future transit oriented conversations and it is already multiple things referred into this area that are contained than the assessments under the master mobility plan as well.

So great discussion, I think, on something. It was probably not going to be the last one but hopefully as we have them, we get a little clear picture and perspective of each other’s concerns so we can focus those in areas where we can make a difference for monitors. Thank you, I return the chair to the mayor recognizing Council Troso also has his hand up to speak. Yes and Council Troso, my understanding is you spoke to the as amended motion because I remember saying to you, make amendments or speak now because you’d already started speaking and then made an amendment now.

Well, I have not spoken to this main part yet so I’m going to do that now. Let me. And I spoke to the amendments and I have not spoken to the main motion that’s on the floor and I think as the ward councilor, Okay, Councilor stopped talking for one sec, please, thanks. I honestly, I can’t keep track of how much you spoke before you moved your amendments.

I did, so I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you can speak now on providing your comments on the as amended motion but you’ve already done your amendments so go ahead and speak. I’ve already done my amendments. I have not spoken to the main motion yet so thank you very much. That’s what I just said, yes.

So I have my time to start now. I would have liked as the ward councilor to be able to sort of act as sort of a facilitator between the people in my ward who have very, very serious and substantial concerns about this particular project and the broader project of building housing. I cannot do that. I can’t do it for a couple of reasons.

Every single time I have attempted to bring something up that will ameliorate the harshness to the people on the ground from this application, it’s been shot down. So you’ve been shot down on procedural grounds or I’ve been told, well, you know, you have to just stick to this application. I am sticking to this application. Now I cannot imagine an infill application that is less suitable to this area than what we have in this situation.

Compare this to some of the other applications that are pending or will be pending in the area where there’s been a lot of thought given to the surrounding land and how the land will blend in with the high rise. This is a 25 story high rise. Even in the transit village area, you’re allowed 22 stories. We’re allowing them to go to 25.

It’s never been clear to me where those extra three stories come from. My concern here is not the three stories. My concern here is the site. Kids go downstairs and play in the parking lot.

This is a strip mall parking lot. I’ll be at a very successful strip mall, which leads me to want to talk about the tenants in the strip mall. And I spoke to them, I canvassed them. They had no idea, no idea that this was going on until I came around with the notice ‘cause the sign wasn’t up.

The sign wasn’t up until the end of the comment period. And then a comment period was extended for a few days. But the sign was not put up in a timely way. I spoke to planning staff about that.

EMS directly told me that they did not know about this. And I spoke to many of the other, actually most of the merchants in the area, including people in the office building, they didn’t know about this, which speaks to something that it goes beyond this particular application. And that’s the weakness in our notice provisions. And I do intend to bring, ask, well, I’m not on PC, PEC, but I will ask for some relief from the current notice provisions.

I want to speak to the main reason why I cannot support this development. And that is, in my view, and I say this very respectfully, it is not a good development. Yes, we want infill. But the infill has to be appropriate.

The infill has to bear some reasonable relationship to the lives of people that are going to be affected by the project. This one does not. This one does not. The fact that you have an EMS station in back of this, and they weren’t even consulted, really speaks to some of the problems that we’ve got in terms of how we’re interpreting our planning rules.

Now, it is absolutely true, and it will come as no surprise to people that we’ve got other similar projects coming down the line. We’ve got the Twin Towers in back of Nash Jewelers at 530 Oxford. We’ve got the Huge E-Sam Project. We’re also going to be looking at a project from Rand in front of Fleetway that’s also going to be massive.

At some point, we’ll be looking at development on the Rhona site, and who knows what else? There might be other ones south of Oxford that I’ve missed. But the fact of the matter is, we are sticking our heads in the proverbial sand by narrowing our focus to just this application. And I think that is— - Okay, Councilor.

Point of personal privilege, go ahead. Go ahead, Councilor. - Thank you. I’ve done my due diligence.

I’ve read the report, just ‘cause my opinion varies, doesn’t mean that I’m provably sticking my head in the sand. We’ve already been accused earlier of being horses with blinders on. I’m gonna ask the council to retract those comments. Respectfully, I really don’t think I can and the reason for that.

  • Okay, Councilor. Hold on. - What? A point of personal privilege has been called.

And it wasn’t direct to her? No, fine. I will make a comment on the point of personal privilege. You don’t just jump in.

Councilor, I have always said, people are going to have different sub-opinions, but we have to have a level of decorum, and sometimes that decorum is based on the intent and sometimes it’s based on the impact. So in this case, I tend to agree with Councilor Palosa that you can say exactly what you’re saying in a different way. And it would be helpful to, I think, the discussion if you could retract the comment that you just made and the way that you did and continue with the time that you have left in a way that you could say the same thing in a way that is, I think, more helpful to the debate that we’re trying to have here. Let me reframe it then, Mayor, and try to reframe it in a way that’s more helpful to the debate.

And that is, when we’re evaluating this application, when we’re evaluating this application— Stop, I got another point of personal privilege. Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes. I didn’t actually hear the Councillor retract a statement or apologize.

Reframe it, and that’s what I was asked today. Well, I’m gonna reframe it, and by reframing it, I’m retracting it, and I’m gonna say it a different way. You are retracting it. Yeah, well, I’m gonna, I said, I’m gonna say it a different way.

Yes, I think what we wanna hear is that you’ve retracted your statement, correct? I retract, I’m gonna retract a statement and restate it a different way. That’s fine, you can absolutely restate it a different way. Yeah, well, that’s, I don’t know what your problem is then, because that’s what I said I was doing.

Listen, yes, don’t, Councillor, through the chair, you can’t look at someone and say, I don’t know what your problem is. That is not how we debate. You can express your opinion through the chair, other members of council, or to staff, in a respectful way, but you cannot do what you just did and that is look at someone across the room and say what you said, right? We will do things through the chair.

You have the ability now to say what you’ve retracted your statement, which I appreciate, and it completes the point of personal privilege from two Councillors. You have time left and you’re gonna say your point in a different way. Yes, I’m gonna go ahead, please. I’m gonna try when I get the floor back.

Tell me when my time starts again. I’m giving you the floor now, and I will restart your time now, and I was paused that entire time. Okay, so. - Go ahead, Councillor.

So perhaps my analogies were too colorful or offensive. What I’m trying to get at here is when you’re evaluating an application, you can’t stop at its borders. You can’t stop at its physical boundaries. You have to take into account the cumulative effects, and I wanna stress the word cumulative effects of everything else that is going on in the area.

Yeah, 30 seconds, Councillor. I’m not, is that okay, is that better? Yeah, that’s good, you got 30 seconds left. Thank you.

  • I’m just like now. So I think the main floor with this application is the way that we have unduly limited ourselves in terms of what we’re looking at, when in fact there is ample evidence on the record, including other traffic studies, other applications that are pending, other applications that we know are coming down the pike, and to just ignore them, I think is an error that I think this council should not be making. In closing, I would encourage people to be opposed to this application. This is without prejudice.

I’m sorry, can I make a point of privilege and ask people not to be laughing? Okay, your time is actually up, Councillor, and I was getting flagged that I actually wasn’t looking, and I gave you a 15-second section of time there. Okay, well, I think that came to me that I just lost track of time there. Okay.

  • So, but you’re done, your time may be an extra. - Okay, thank you very much. Okay, Deputy Mayor Lewis to the as amended motion. Yes, on the main motion as amended, your worship, which, you know, I have to start by saying through you that the only way for us to get on the speakers list is to raise our hand for you to see us, to be recognized later.

So, I’m gonna offer a couple of comments here. And first, during this debate, I’ve had a chance to actually have staff confirm that the commander of operations for EMS was in fact notified about this application. So, while the individuals in the individual EMS station may not have been, the commander of operations was. So, I think that’s the first piece of information that I wanna share with colleagues.

But I also wanna take this opportunity to point out, and through you, I’m gonna take the opportunity to ask our staff to confirm. The public notices that we provide comply with provincial statutory regulations, correct? Through you, go ahead. Is through your worship, that’s correct.

Go ahead, thank you. So, when we provide public notice to anyone, when we start varying from that, not only will we be incurring a cost, but then we start setting ourselves up to have to do this for every application across the city because we’re setting a new standard. So, I would not be supportive of that. And when I hear, and I heard this at another application, actually an application I believe in, Councilor Ploza’s ward along the Wellington Gateway project, that a tenant wasn’t notified by their landlord, a commercial tenant, I should specify.

And really for me, from a planning perspective, that is the issue between the landlord and the tenant. The commercial tenant has a lease. They have an agreement with the landlord. If the landlord has not informed them of works happening, has not made provisions for that through their lease, then there is civil action that that tenant can take with regard to the land holder.

So, I can’t make a decision on a planning application based on whether the manager of a restaurant has been advised by the property owner that work is gonna happen. I just can’t do that. That’s not something that falls under our responsibility. That’s a landlord lease-y issue, not planning committee issue to consider.

So, I’m gonna be very supportive of this application. I encourage colleagues to do the same. I do wanna recognize Councillor ramen’s motion and concern. And I think she will follow through and bring forward something to civic works.

I think it should dovetail nicely on the work that Councillor Layman, yourself, as the previous ward’s seven-councer, your worship, and Councillor Hopkins, as ward seven-councers did at the end of the previous term of council with regard to referring the secondary plan, which was moved down the prioritization list for the Wellington Gateway process to move forward. Still have this folded into it for future consideration. So, I think that the work is already done, but I think to Councillor ramen’s point about putting the puzzle pieces together and addressing that through a future civic works motion makes some sense there, if it’s building on the work that’s already been started. So, that’s why I’m gonna be supportive of this, and I’m gonna encourage colleagues to do the same.

I don’t have any other speakers to this as amended motion. Councillor ramen, go ahead to the as amended motion. Thank you, and I’ll be quick. I just wanted to say, I appreciate the dialogue today.

I appreciate the willingness to have conversation around some of the issues that impact residents in the area that were connected to the application. Ultimately, I agree with my colleagues, we do need more housing, and we need to support more growth in the city. However, I’m happy that we got into the site plan approval authority, a request to look at the EMS traffic flows in the area, and I look forward to bringing a motion to, although I’m not on the committee, to CWC to be able to have further discussion about addressing congestion and growth in the West London area. And I appreciate our discussion around transit villages.

However, I do wanna caution that we only are part of the puzzle when it comes to transit designation. You know, we’re not funding our transit entirely, and we would be completely reliant on the federal government for funding. So right now, we have two legs of transit villages in two areas that are not funded, particularly when it comes to adding transit and higher order transit. So I think, again, that’s what the public is pointing to, and they’re saying that that’s where perhaps these designations don’t flow as well, but it is good to note where we want to grow as well.

So I’ll be supporting the application and moving forward with more conversation, hopefully at CWC. Okay, that exhaust, the speaker’s list on, this is now the as amended motion. I’m gonna open that for voting. Opposing the vote, motion carries 12 to two.

I might suggest we do like a 10 minute break, just people can get a drink, use the washroom. That was a good debate, but got a little bit, he did, I think I, myself, I wouldn’t mind just doing 10 minutes. I was going to suggest your worship, we have one item left on the Planning and Environment Committee agenda, perhaps we could dispense with that before we go to the next meeting report. If I see nods, yeah, one more and then we’ll take a break.

Okay, let’s get planning done. Okay, go ahead and present the next one, the last one. Okay, I will now put item six on the floor. This is the buyer and gravel pit secondary plan.

I’ve pulled this one as I believe Councilor Frank has an amendment she wish to put forward. Okay, so you’ve put it on the floor, Councilor Frank, go ahead. Thank you, yes, hopefully this will be a nice one ‘cause I think birds are really happy. So I’m just gonna talk about birds for a couple of minutes, but essentially we got an excellent report from staff regarding the buyer and gravel pit secondary plan.

There’s been a lot of really good work done by staff creating what the different zones would look like and what the different purposes would be in those various areas. I’m not at all trying to hold up any kind of planning development applications or any kind of planning processes, but specifically for those who aren’t aware, but I’m sure you all are. There is a significant colony of bank swallows located at this location, so over 2,000 unique birds. Bank swallows are species at risk.

The complicating issue at this location is that it is both an aggregate pit and therefore falls under the aggregate resources act as well as the bank swallows are protected under the Endangered Species Act. And there’s competing provincial legislation and where we as a city and also the developers in this area are not sure who is correct, I guess, or what kind of legislation trumps the other one since both are important and both are valid. So given this uncertainty, I’m just trying to ensure that the bank’s well habitat is not lost or forgotten in this whole process. So I’ve drafted up a bit of language.

I don’t know if you do want me to get a seconder and then continue fishing my remarks. I realize I just kept talking. Yeah, I’m counting this as you’re speaking to this thing and now you want to make an amendment, so you’re going to have done both, right? Sure.

Okay, so you want to make an amendment now? Yeah, and then I’m going to finish what I was saying though, like as my amendment comments. Sure, well, when she moved the amendment, you can speak the amendment too. Great, okay.

But you said nice things about the main motion and now you want to amend it. So Councillor Hopkins said she was willing to move the amendment. So moved in seconder, we’re now on the amendment and you can speak to it if you’d like. Excellent.

All right, so again, for those who don’t know, Parks and Forestry staff will be undertaking a comprehensive park master plan for this area, especially the green space area. There’s going to be a lot of exciting opportunity within this area, there’s a wet space that could be used for, who knows, a waterboarding, or not waterboarding, oh, sorry, sorry, water sports. So take me a minute, just don’t laugh, please. Sorry, for water sports.

But one of the really exciting additions that I think would add a huge ecotourism boost would be if we had big soil habitat, I personally travel around Ontario going to look at people, going to look at birds, including Point Peley, and if you go there in May, you can not even really book a hotel or an Airbnb because so many people are very passionate about birding and 2,000 bank swallows, I think, would be a very big regional attraction. So in order to try and protect that, while we’re moving along with this process, I want to make sure that the bank’s well habitat is captured, whether it stays where it is in its current location because, you know, the developers don’t have to fill in the pit, or if it needs to move somewhere else on site, or if we have to create some sort of man-made infrastructure, whatever that is, I’m hoping to seek support that that can be included in the staff’s master plan, and that is all this direction is providing, is making sure that somewhere at this location, there’s habitat for the bank swallows. So I’m seeking your support on this, and I have already circulated it and discussed it with staff, and not that they’ve endorsed it, but they’ve looked at it and it doesn’t seem to have any issues with the work that they’re currently doing in that area as well. Yeah, and given, I don’t know if the public following along, ‘cause I don’t think you’ve read the wording of the motion, like, all great, could you just read the wording of the motion so that people in the audience are at home know exactly what you’re moving?

Yes, sorry, thank you. That civic administration be directed to ensure that future background studies supporting the development of a park master plan for the buyer and gravel pit, investigate the creation and inclusion of artificial habitat for an alternative location for the bank swallow, if such needs are required due to plan relocation of the habitat. Perfect, Councillor Hopkins was willing to second that, and you’ve spoken to it, so I have Councillor Hopkins, I think you wanted to speak to, and then I have Councillor Ferra next. Yeah, I just wanna thank Councillor Frank for doing the work on this motion, and thank the committee.

I know there were a number of added items regarding the natural heritage feature going forward, so I wanna thank the committee for supporting those items, but this is an important item. We’re looking at a secondary plan, we are also going forward looking at a master plan for the park area, and how we determine that, we’re going to have to look at the bank swallows that really have established themselves throughout the past number of years, there’s a couple thousand of them there, and we are going to eventually have to look at what we’re going to do with that, so I’m hoping you could support this amendment. Speaking on behalf of the Byron community, this Byron pit is very dear and near to Byronites, it is a unique area, and it has a, I think a word, it celebrates this area, the community really acknowledges the importance and uniqueness, but also with the bank swallows, it’s, I don’t think you could speak to anyone saying, oh my goodness, we’ve got to get rid of the bank swallows, and it’s a problem, we may have to address it eventually as we develop the pit, but that should be taken into consideration when we go through the master plan, so I’m hoping you will support Councillor Frank’s motion or amendment. All right, Councillor Ferrera.

Thank you, Chair. So yeah, I appreciate also the work from Councillor Frank on this, I was really happy to see that, I also appreciate the incredible letter that we got from Brendan Samuels, he’s not here today, but it was a very good, well-written letter, very informative. In that letter, we learned that there have been Council of up to a thousand nests of bank swallows in the area, with almost 2,000 birds, around 2,000 birds there, and apparently that represents what is believed to be the largest known inland breeding colony of the entire province, so we also learned from the letter that the bank swallows are threatened under the Ontario Endangered Species List and Canada’s species app. So in the current form, this Byron gravel pit seems to be simulating the natural environment for breeding of these birds, and that is directly tied to their survivability.

As it is a significant portion of the species in Ontario in the Byron gravel pit, and the bank swallows their endangered species, not protecting this area could have a very high likelihood of protecting these nesting grounds could have a very high likelihood of impacting the entire species in general, so I think this is really good work, and I’ll definitely be supporting this, and I hope that we do get support from the rest of Council on this one, ‘cause we could potentially be saving an entire species of bird here, so thank you. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you, while I did not support this at committee, part of my concern was that we were weighing it, pardon the pun, on the committee floor, and hadn’t had time to give this thoughtful and full consideration. Councilor Frank’s provided additional information since the committee meeting.

I’m not sure that waterboarding will be a good ecotourism draw, but if I could convince the Councilor to put a plank off the edge of the cliff so we could do some bungee jumping with the swallows, that might be more fun. I’d sign up for that, but I’m gonna pass on the waterboarding piece. However, I support where the Councilor’s going with this, and even I’m having a hard time keeping a straight face now, seeing her laughing, but although I didn’t support it at committee, I can support it now, and I do want to thank her for getting us additional information between committee and Council that we could consider. Okay, that’s all the speakers I have on the amendment, so I’m gonna open the amendment for voting.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Okay, as amended, willing to move to as amended, and I need a seconder for as amended, Councillor Hopkins, oh, you’re not seconded out. Well, I need a seconder for the as amended, then Councillor Palosa. Councillor Hopkins, you wanted to split the vote, you said?

Yes, your worship, I spoke to the clerk. I would like to have IX pulled and X pulled as it relates to the changes going from 18 stories to 22, and the reduction of affordable housing from 25 to 10 to 15, not supporting that, and I’m happy to speak to it. All right, we’ll do those two pieces separate. Any speakers to the as amended motion?

Now, I’ll tell you how I’m gonna divide it in a second, just wanna make sure everybody’s good. Okay, no other speakers. So let’s do the parts, Councillor Hopkins wanted out first. So these are the parts that you asked to be excluded, just ‘cause it’s just easier to pull it up quickly that way.

So that’s, I can say, same mover and seconder for this. So this is just part X, sorry, IX and X, so nine and 10 under A, just this part, then we’ll deal with the rest of it after. You can open that for voting. Sorry, your worship, I thought we were gonna go with the main motion and then speak to the two, or we were doing it the other way around, ‘cause I see the two items that we’re voting on right now.

That’s what you just asked for, just split it. There was no one else on the speakers list, yeah. If I could just speak to why I’m not supporting it. Oh, sure, go ahead, yeah.

Thank you, no reason I’m not supporting it. I do appreciate the conversation that the committee have and the change is made. This is not a transit village, I think 22 stories. I sometimes think we’re missing that missing metal.

I think the intensification is gonna be great along by our own baseline there. We have very few opportunities of moving around, let alone dealing with the geography in the area. And I was disappointed to see the affordable housing reduction down from 25 to 10 to 15. I think I was pleased to see that at least 25 could be had for affordable housing, so I won’t be supporting these two, but wanna thank the committee for the conversation.

Okay, any other speakers on those two pieces? Okay, we’re gonna open that vote again. I canceled it when the councilor wanted to speak, so we’ll open that for voting. Right, thank you, please be seated.

Okay, we’re on to the seventh report of Corporate Services Committee. I believe Councilor Cuddy is going to present this report. Thank you, worship, and through you, it’s my pleasure to present the seventh report of Corporate Services Committee. I’ve been advised by the clerk that we are to move, sorry, we’re going to pull motion number six and number seven, so we will be, I would like to move motions one through five and eight through 10, so that’s one through five, eight through 10, pulling six and seven.

Okay, has anybody want anything else dealt with separately? Just those two, okay, that looks good, okay, so you’re moving that? Yes, sir. Good, or any discussion on those items?

Okay, seeing none, we can open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you, worship. Now we will pull number six, and I’ll put that one on the floor.

Okay, number six is on the floor, it’s moved by the vice chair. Any discussion on number six? Seeing none, we can open that for voting. Thank you, closing the vote, motion carries 11 to two with one recuse.

Right, go ahead. Thank you, worship, and now I will put number seven on the floor, that’s 2.2. Okay, number seven is moved. There’s an amendment for that one?

Oh, yes. Thank you. Councilor Ammons got her hand up, so go ahead. All right, thank you.

So through you, chair, I wanted to add, and it being noted to you this item, it was in relation to the discussion that we were having at committee regarding the surplus, and our current policies related to said surplus, and how we look to utilize money that comes in through that means. So in this case, it would be an, it being noted that the mayor be requested to use a one-time draw of 3.5 million from the Community Investment Reserve Fund to offset the 2025 increased tax rate. Being that we are now subject to— Can I just get you a seconder first? A seconder for the answer for our— Thank you, sorry, I’m so used to just jumping into it.

So being that we now have strong mayor legislation, I wanted to look at moving this, it being noted, so that we could potentially send a signal to the mayor as to some direction around how to use the $7 million, and specifically 3.5 million of that $7 million that would go into the Community Investment Reserve Fund, based on the conversation that we were having at committee that day. So some of the reasons for this is, I was thinking about where that fund has been previous to this. So during the multi-year budget, we drew that fund down to about 200,000. So this would still leave 3.7 million in that fund, but what it would mean is that we would see a 0.4, or 0.4 decrease, sorry, in 2025.

Of course, that would then impact 2026, and we’d see a 0.4 increase to 2026, but it would, I think, give us moments to pause when we’re looking to use the money that’s in the Community Investment Reserve Fund that we already are putting in the $7 million, so that we don’t, therefore, go out and start to look for or other groups in the community come to us with other funding opportunities that would bring us closer to or above the 3.5. So we’re 3.7, sorry, so we leave that 3.7 to be used, but at later dates and for important projects and considerations. But it’s almost like paying ourselves first, which is a common principle that people use when they’re doing their own budgeting. It’s saying, let’s look at bringing down that the tax burden in 2025, where possible.

And this is a way where we could still leave money within the Community Investment Reserve Fund and still have that future-proofed, but at the same time, we could look to make this request to the mayor in accordance with the budget update for 2025. Yeah, I’ll look for speakers on the amendment, which is moved and seconded. Councillor Ferrer, go ahead. Thank you, Chair.

So I’m happy to second this, simply because we’re trying to lessen the burden or the load on the taxpayer looking into the future. So I do feel like this works fairly well. We still have some money that will be allocated to the Community Investment Reserve Fund. We do have some money, if this is approved, that can reduce that load.

And I would also say, looking into the future, especially with the level of the tax levy right now, you will probably be seeing, I would assume anyways, a substantial surplus potentially in the next coming years. So just kind of lead us into that. I do understand that with respect to our surplus policy, this is a little bit of a deviation from that, but these times are a little bit different from normal. So I do think that this would be a wise choice to go.

Like I said, it does leave some money still within the Community Investment Reserve Fund, and it will lessen the tax load for the taxpayer in our future years. So this is why I’m fully supporting this, and I do hope that we can get some support from Council and approve this. I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship.

So I will definitely not be supporting this. First of all, considering the conversation that was had a committee, it would have been great to have this circulated in advance rather than on the floor, so that we could have at least entertained some thought about it. We’ve been talking about perhaps, you know, changing the ratio and saying we’re gonna put 30% into the Infrastructure Gap Reserve Fund, and only 20% in the Community Investment Reserve, so that we can speed up some infrastructure projects or something like that. I might have been amenable to a conversation, but to a channel and my inner Councillor Van Mirberg and then to echo his comments from the committee meeting, using one-time money to pay down taxes temporarily, to artificially depress taxes is a really bad idea, in my opinion, and I know Councillor Van Mirberg and said something similar at the committee meeting.

It will mean that the 2026 level goes up as well. If we want to find tax savings, Councillors, then respectfully, we need to find areas where we are providing a service that’s no longer relevant for us to be providing, or find ways to generate new revenue. It is not using a little bit of surplus at the end of the year to depress the tax. This is that lever, or as I described it to Councillors, the bouncing ball budget number.

It simply bounces back up higher the next year. I think we’re doing a real disservice to people in doing that. We’ve got a multi-year budget where at least they know what to expect coming forward. We have all kinds of infrastructure items that need funding.

We have all kinds of community items that need funding that don’t have sources of funding right now either. So I think when it comes down to the adage about paying yourself, the first thing that most people do is put away some savings. And that’s what putting this money into those reserve funds is putting away savings, knowing that we’re going to need this money elsewhere to do other things. So I’m going to leave it at that.

I absolutely can’t support this. I would love for Councillors to bring forward ideas for permanent long-term savings, just the same way our staff do in our annual service reviews. I know your worship, you’ve indicated that you are working on creating a terms of reference for a new committee. I look forward to the work that that committee does because I think it’s going to be important.

We’re undertaking already an audit with one board. I think we need to look at audits with other boards and do service reviews there as well for future savings. I think that’s how you find money, not by just pushing it down this year, so we’re pushing it down next year so it can bounce back up in 2026. Other speakers to this?

I have Councillor Stevenson next, and then Councillor Van Mierbergen. Thank you. We did have a bit of a discussion about this at corporate services, and I did raise a few points, and I wouldn’t mind staff answering again, I’ve got two questions. One is I asked at committee, we did a one-time P71 in the last year’s budget was $15 million COVID one-time money that came forward, and I had said, you know, if there’s this huge concern about one-time offsets to our property tax rate, why was there no concern about this $15 million one-time credit to the tax rate?

So staff could answer that question again, just for the benefit of the rest of the council members here. I’ll go to Ms. Barmon, but I’ll just caution that it was a decision of council to do that, right? It was in the budget, so I don’t know if there’s any information you want to add, but I wouldn’t expect you to weigh in on, you know, yeah, I’ll let you speak, but I’ll recognize this was a decision of council.

Through the chair, that amount of money was left over from COVID that had been set aside for a particular purpose. That money was no longer required as for that particular purpose. So a business case was brought forward for council’s consideration as part of the multi-year budget. So that ultimately did get approved through the council process and included as part of the budget process.

So yes, that was put forward for a council decision. Councilor Stuinson. Yes, thank you. And so my question, so that the public can understand this as well, that seemed like a reasonable prudent thing to do.

And yet any consideration now of a similar kind of thing with an amount of three million instead of 15 million is considered, you know, something scary that we don’t want to do. And so I’m looking for the rationale for why that was a reasonable and prudent business case and this would not be. Well, you know, I guess you’ll have to wait for colleagues to wait in and to debate, like Deputy Mayor Lewis did and listen to their reasons for their decisions ‘cause I don’t think that’s a question that staff can answer, so. Okay, well, that’s fine.

So I’ll just continue then. I did have another question for staff. When I was doing my research on this, I understand that we have a policy around what we do with the surpluses, but it looked to me that in 2020 and in 2021, we did not follow the policy. I saw that we gave three and a half million to RBC place.

And in 2021, we gave 1.8 million to Covent Garden Market and another half million to RBC place amongst some other different reserve funds for affordable housing and for vehicles. So can we just find out from staff if I’m correct in that and that two of the last three years, we did not follow the policy? Yep, I’ll get them to address that. Go ahead, Mr.

Murray. Thank you, and excuse me, through the three, Mr. Mayor. The Councilor’s correct, 2020 and 2021 did see some, what I would call unusual contributions that were approved for other purposes.

The Councilor will recall that that was the height of COVID and were truly extraordinary times that required unusual or outside of the norm responses to address financial impacts that some of those organizations were facing at that time. So there were allocations that were approved by Council through the year end monitoring process for those purposes at that time. And those were recommendations that were brought forward for Council approval because they were outside of the usual policy allocations that would be followed through the surplus deficit policy. Thank you.

Go ahead, Councilor. Perfect, thank you very much for that. And yes, there were, was extenuating times and I understand that for Covent Garden and RBC Place, it was COVID related, but there was money allocated to affordable housing reserves and vehicles, you know, the money was allocated in a way that was felt to be appropriate. So, and in each of the news articles that I read for those years, it’s specified completely that Council can spend the money however they want when it comes to doing the surplus.

So, I would say that we are also in a very highly unusual time where we had a surplus that was almost 50% more than the last three years. Looked to me like the last three years, we, you know, we were around the 20 million mark. This year we’re at 31 million. We also had a property tax increase rate that was 280% higher than last year.

So, for me, I have a bit of a difficult time. I stood with the budget process. I said no to a lot of things to try to keep the rate as low as we could. Sold to people that, you know, 8.8 was the best that we could do.

And then to in such a short period of time, say, oh, we’ve got 31 million. In fact, it was really 40 million. I, you know, it was a lot of money that we had surplus for last year to then say to people, oh, sorry, you know, it would just be, it would cause this big bump and we just can’t give you back any of your money. We need to put it down in our debt and we need to save it.

Well, Londoners are like, hello. You know, you said you had to do it and yet you were, that surplus that we had last year was almost half of the increase that we did this year. It was a 4% difference on the surplus that we had that we knew about and that, or that we’d reasonably estimated and that we just hit them with the big, you know, we had no problem hitting with them with the big increase. And now we’re like, oh, no, we can’t give you any of that back.

I don’t know that that’s gonna go over really well. 30 seconds. I do think Councillor ramen for this and I will be supporting it. All right, Councillor Vamevergan.

Thank you, Mayor. The deputy mayor is quite correct. I mean, the use of one-time money with absolutely no guarantee or a reasonable amount of certainty that certainty that this is actually going to continue is at best foolhardy. And why it’s foolhardy is because you’re setting all tax payers up for what I’ve described before as a budget bomb and others have described as a budget bomb because you create a hole with this one-time money and with it, you’re trying to lower ongoing tax rates.

So if in the following year, a surplus of that magnitude doesn’t materialize or even to cover what you are trying to give us tax relief, then it turns around and bites you in the dairy air because there’s nothing there to support it and hence the budget bomb. So you end up with not only an increase, which is already forecast, but an increase on the increase. And that’s hardly helpful to taxpayers. So the idea of paying down debt is, is in of itself a way to pay back taxpayers in a far more certain way and a more prudent way than trying to use this one-time money.

I know it’s enticing. You think, oh, there’s the cash. Let’s just use ongoing tax relief, but it just doesn’t work that way. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you. I go to Councilor Pribble next. Thank you. One thing is that we keep saying one time and this money, and right now it’s three and a half million.

And throughout the year, hopefully, we would have more savings we put in a pot. We can do it into the reserve fund. And this reserve fund can be not just one time. It can be put, it’s a four year, we have a four year, this year has been set.

For next three years, we can pay it out of this certain items, certain points from the, doesn’t matter if it’s from the cases, we can pick up. So it’s not kind of that I keep hearing that we want to use it. We don’t have to use it all in one year. We don’t have to use it all next year.

We can put it and use it over three years. But all this money will add up. It’s three and a half million dollars, but we got to start somewhere. So again, when I keep hearing from my colleagues that it’s one time, it’s one time if we decide to do it one time.

But it doesn’t have to be. I certainly don’t agree with the policy that we have. I think the times change. And our policy both for surplus, as well as for growth assessment, I don’t think we should leave it the way it is.

We should leave it actually the other way open. And it shouldn’t be coming from the staff as just kind of node and file for information. No, it should be the 15 of us that decide on these things. Doesn’t matter if it’s a surplus or growth assessment.

Every year is different. And if it doesn’t matter if it’s the percentages that we might want to change, or if you want to change it to different accounts, different sums. But again, based on what we know and the increase of the rate for this year or next three years, it’s average is very high. But again, if we do it one year, yes, what was said here, it’s true.

One year advantage, you’re going to hike it up the following years. But we don’t have to do that. And I really think, to be honest with you, I know my counselor, she was faster, but I really thought to refer this back to the corporate services and to talk about it. If it’s not, I will certainly support this.

I will certainly support this motion. And, but I really do think that if there’s no change, that the new working group is going to revisit this because it does not give us flexibility. We are tying our hands both for the surplus and for the growth assessment. Ties our hands and each year could be different.

And we should be flexible, and we should address the highest needs that work the best for the half a million of Londoners. Thank you. All speakers to this, go ahead, Councillor Ploza. Thank you, I’ll speak to several components.

I won’t bear the lead, I won’t be supporting this. As it is that increase, we’re going to have to do for the next tax. If we lower it now, we still need to make it up later. This is one time money and glad that over half of this came from investment income.

Didn’t know it was coming, glad it’s here, but it very well could not have been here. As we went through this budget process, we did draw down on the community investment reserve fund. A lot of the extra library cases came out of there. And through that budget process, we did say that if you take from the reserve fund at some point, ideally you’re going to want to make it whole again for it’s available for your use.

The fall budget update will come near October, and I will say that this is the process. So I thank the Councillor for bringing her ideas forward in this as this was the appropriate time in place to bring it forward through as per our policies. Staff brings this report forward based on policies as created by Council. So it’s not them directing us.

They are bringing the report as directed by Council itself. I will also note that we know we have future debt coming in $330 million in unsupported work that needs to be done. That needs to be supported through property taxes over the 2024 to 2033 timeline. And we know we have a capital infrastructure gap as well.

We didn’t put extra money in through some of the business cases that came through this budget process. We decided not to try to keep taxes low in that process. This is our opportunity to make some of those reserve funds back up. I have heard from Londoners absolutely keep my taxes as low as you can, but some Londoners also asking, am I paying for my fair share now of what I’m using or am I putting future taxes onto future in Londoners, which could include their children, which would make London even more unobtainable for them to be owners of their own properties or renters in the city.

So I’m on no on this, but this is the proper space. Also where the mayor’s working group, he wants to form. And it will be making sure that things that go to that working group are not meant to actually go to other committees and council. So this is the space for this conversation.

And I am thankful for the conversation here to clear up some concerns that we’ve all brought forward. Thank you. Councillor Stevenson, you’ve already spoken to this. So I’m gonna— Yeah, I don’t know if it’s a point of order or I’m not sure, but it was just said that staff are bringing this to us per the direction of council.

But I just wanted to be clear. My understanding was in 2020 and 2021, staff brought forward something that was different, that these are just policy guidelines, so I just— Right, so staff bring forward reports and then we consider them and approve them. And Mr. Murray answered why staff brought forward something alternative council was doing a whole range of things during the pandemic and afterwards to carry stuff forward and ensure that we had capacity ‘cause we weren’t sure when things were gonna recover.

So for sure, council can do whatever it likes with its policy and notwithstanding things all the time. But what we have here is staff have brought forward this specific recommendation, which is their recommendation at this time given the context and circumstances. And in the past, they’ve done stuff differently. So it’s, I’m gonna take that as— That’s the point, that’s the point of clarity I just wanted to make.

Absolutely, yeah. It was said there that staff had to do act according to our policy and that’s incorrect. They could have brought something forward that was different and they didn’t. No, that’s not correct.

In the past, council took a series of actions saying we’re going to do things differently during the pandemic. We provided a number of directions over a number of years, longstanding, we formed new funding opportunities, we carried forward, we carried forward surplus in a way that we normally wouldn’t because we were unsure of the impacts. Staff were provided with council direction and dialogue through the pandemic to do things a little bit different and they’ve continued to operate under different procedures. So council, staff are following the policy and they’ve sometimes provide recommendations for our consideration.

And so I don’t think we can debate, this is what’s before us. This is their recommendation. Council has the right to do something different. There’s a motion on the floor.

That’s what we’re considering. So that’s fine. Okay, I’ll look for other speakers to this. Okay, I’ll speak to it then.

I’m going to hand the chair over to Councilor Close. Thank you. I have the chair and recognizing Mayor Morgan. So there’s a couple of comments that have been said related to the amendment.

So I just want to touch on a few of them. One is I just want to emphasize that the debt in the infrastructure gap is Londoner’s debt and Londoner’s infrastructure gap to deal with. So as we have policy tools at our disposal to put money aside to help with those things, those are very responsible, very fiscally responsible things to do to ensure that we have fiscal capacity at the times we need it. And then when we have it, we can actually pay down or avoid an issue debt, especially in a high interest rate environment with policies that are working well over the long term.

We have solid fiscal priorities and a plan that has served us very well over not just one council, but multiple decades. I think the policies work quite well. Now here’s where I think that this is a great discussion to have. What does the policy say?

It says, let’s pay down some debt. Let’s put money aside for infrastructure gap to giant needs that we know we have. And let’s put money in the community investment reserve fund. And that reserve fund is designed to give council the capacity throughout the course of the year or over multiple years to do things and deal with things that they would like to do that may not be already structured in the budget.

So I think that that has also served council well over the number of years. Now where I think we can have a very meaningful discussion is do we need $7 million in that fund, right? And that’s a decision that we can have a discussion on a debate on. So I don’t have an objection to not keeping $7 million in community investment reserve fund.

I don’t have a problem with that being lower, but just doing what has been said and that’s putting it towards an artificial decrease in 2025 and then an increase in 2026 is just using that money to shift the tax burden between those two years. Now, another way we could do this that I would probably be more supportive of if you wanna give a lot of nurse some permanent tax relief like put more towards debt reduction. If you don’t want as much in the community investment reserve fund, put this $3.5 million towards more debt reduction. We’ll avoid more issuing more debt.

We’ll avoid the interest payments on those debt that we will pay lenders in that cost avoidance. For some of this debt is on, look at the debentures we have before us today. We’re talking about 10, 20, 30 years sometimes of debt, avoiding with $3.5 million in additional debt burden for that period of time pays us back over the long run and adheres to our fiscal policy. It’s a type of thing that demonstrates to our credit rating agency is that we are managing debt over the time horizon very responsibly.

So I think the better way if the goal is to return this to lenders in some way, return to them by paying down some of their debt, right? Let’s avoid the interest payments, get a little bit of savings on the servicing of that debt that we avoid issuing it in the first place. So, and again, the level that we wanna maintain in the community investment reserve fund, that’s our decision to make, fully support having this debate. I think this is great.

So I won’t support this particular motion because not that I don’t mind reducing our reserve fund by 3.5, I just think I would spend it a different way. And that would be through debt reduction of counsel. If counsel colleagues, and I recognize that yes, I have some new responsibilities in the budget, but this reserve fund is yours, right? This is meant to be counsel’s release valve.

And if you wanna spend $3.5 million of it in a different way, my suggestion as a member of counsel would be, let’s pay down some more debt with it. It accomplishes a very similar thing for lenders. Councilor Closely, you still have the chair. Sorry, you’re at three minutes and 50 seconds.

Excellent job staying within the five minutes. I was still timing you and I return the chair to you. All right, other speakers to this who haven’t spoken yet, no one on it. Okay, I think that it exhausts the speakers list on this.

So if there’s no one else, then we’re gonna open it for voting. Vote no. Thank you, closing the vote. Motion fails five to nine.

Okay, we’re back to the original committee recommendation of which we had one speaker so far. So any other speakers? Councilor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you.

I understand that there’s a difference of opinion on this. And I find it interesting like the languaging around responsibility and prudence. And so it just makes sort of any other alternative irresponsible and not prudent, which I think for me, clouds the ability that we have as a council to do with the surplus as we choose. And at budget time, I said no to a lot of things that I really believe lenders deserve and need.

More funding for the housing stability bank. More money for the libraries, more money for the arts. And the reason I said no was because we were at 8.7 or 8.8%. So then to all of a sudden have a surplus now that is massive and to just fill our reserve funds and say, oh, good, will we have money to do the things that we want?

Well, people wanted money for the housing stability bank. They wanted money for the libraries. They wanted money for the arts. And so what I would like to do is move a referral of this motion back to corporate services so that council has the time to go back and look at the budget and the cases that they wanted to potentially say yes to that didn’t.

And at least if we’re not going to return money to the taxpayers in terms of a credit on next year’s taxes, let’s at least give them some of what they want and be able to say that we made prudent decisions during the budget process and now that we have money, this is what we’re gonna do so that they see that we’re giving back to them out of this budget surplus. So I’d like to move a referral to the next meeting. And as far as I understand, there’s no rush to do this. It’s just a journal entry into the reserves.

So it’s a referral back to corporate services committee is what you’re saying? I believe that’s the only option. Is it if we can move a test PPC where all of council could do it or a budget meeting, if there’s another option where all of council could do it, that would be great. Yeah, you can notwithstanding our general policy on standing committees and refer it to any standing committee.

We’ve done that with a couple of items. I think SPPC then so that we could do it as a whole like we did the budget. So you wanna move a referral of this report to SPPC notwithstanding our whatever language we have to use to not withstand our council procedure by-law on that. Is there a seconder?

Councilor Pribbles willing to second. Okay, so I’ll let you, Councilor Stevens, and if you wanna now speak to what is your referral on the floor? Oh, wait, can I speak after? Yeah, you can speak anytime during the debate, but you get to speak once to the referral.

Okay, I’ll do it at the end. Okay, great. I have Deputy Mayor Lewis first, and then I’ll look to others. Thank you, Your Worship.

So I won’t be supporting the referral because I don’t see this surplus fund as a go back, move reconsideration on budget business cases, which would be required because they’re decided matters of council. You now need two thirds to open up a budget business case that was rejected to have it reconsidered by council. But I don’t see this as a, hey, let’s take some money. And sorry, I don’t mean to be flipping about it.

I appreciate what Councilor Stevens is trying to do. Stevenson is trying to do, but this is not a go back and revisit budget business cases. What it does do as the Mayor alluded to is there does, as we did this year, create a source of funding that we may want to consider in the annual budget update for some of the things that we may not wish to say yes to from the property tax base, but it does leave us a potential source of funding for updates that are coming to us as Councilor Plows indicated in the fall budget update, which is why I support leaving in the Community Investment Reserve Fund for now, because that is a fund which we can draw on at our discretion through a vote of council at a future budget update. I don’t want to revisit the decisions we’ve made.

I want to move forward, and this funding does provide us an opportunity to potentially say yes to some updates that come forward in the fall budget update. I will also add that we’re now into almost the end of April. So any budget business cases that we wanted to revisit, even if reconsideration was passed, would require our staff, boards, agencies and commissions to then pro-rate what they can do, what’s operationalized within the remainder of the calendar year. But again, it’s also one-time money.

And a lot of the things we said no to in the budget were ongoing operational matters. They were not one-time funding matters. They were things that we’re going to require funding this year and next year and the year after and the year after on into perpetuity. So we still create a budget bomb if we go back and fund some of the budget business cases this year without a permanent source of funding for the moving forward.

So that’s why I won’t be supporting the referral. I would encourage colleagues to consider the fact that we may want to utilize some of this reserve fund in the fall when the fall budget update comes for some things that we may not want to put on the property tax rate. Mr. Trossa.

Before I can vote on this, I need to ask staff, what is the downside in terms of our ongoing operations if we allow this to go back to a committee for another cycle? I’ll go to Ms. Barbong about any concerns on timing. Thank you, through your worship.

The only concerns is the timing of our year-end entries and moving that forward. Certainly we can delay another cycle if that was council’s desire. Thank you, to the chair. But to be clear, voting for this deferral would not hold up the issuance of the property tax bills to the public.

Go ahead. Thank you, through chair. No, this is completely separate with respect to the property tax bills. Those will pending the final approval of the tax policy bylaws.

That would be moving forward and certainly having those mail-ins before the end of May. So the budget would be complete and final for this year. Anything, again, as I think one of the councilors would mention, used with this money would be one time in nature and would not impact the budget and how it proceeds for 2024. Okay, well, that’s very helpful.

As I stand here now, I’m inclined to support the referral unless somebody who has been spoken yet can explain to me with more clarity what the downside of this is given what the treasurer just said. And I’d appreciate that ‘cause I’m sort of on the fence on this. Okay, well, you can hear from Councilor Privel next. So go ahead, Councilor Privel.

Thank you. It’s better be good. No, I just think again that we were voted by half a million of Londoners, the 15 of us. And I really think that amount like $31 million that we should be deciding.

And yes, previous council, they did this policy 50, 25, 25 to these three accounts, but I really think that we should revisit this. As Councilor Stevenson said, I don’t think it’s necessary that it doesn’t mean that we might have to revisit the past previous cases. But we actually didn’t have, it’s kind of like a couple other plans that we received during the last 18 months and we were told this is not an exact words, but this is kind of the best. This is the policy, this is the best, this is the, but for me, it’s the only one.

It’s the only one. And I would love to see other opportunities where we can do with the $31 million. And if nothing else, if you don’t come up with anything else, then I certainly would support at least paying off the debt to be really prudent and to make good financial decisions for half a million of Londoners. But I just again, I know it’s a four year plan, but the earlier we start thinking future and annual updates, the better for us and we’ll be ready.

So that’s why I would like to referral. Let us, we got nothing to lose. We really don’t. The only thing is again, in terms of the accounting, we’ll wait, we’ll wait, but it’s not that we are losing opportunities.

It’s not that we are gonna delay tax property, tax notices. So it’s none of that. So let’s take it back. Let’s look at our options.

And even if it does come up that we decide that this is the best one there was, but at least we have an opportunity to do it. This council, the 15 of us, we haven’t done it. So let’s explore what’s the best for us. And as I said, if nothing else, then I certainly would recommend paying off more debt than doing additional reserve funds.

So we are really prudent and safe, if not in shorter, at least in longer time, money to the Londoners. Thank you. Councillor Ferrera and then Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Chair.

So, you know, originally, ‘cause with the original motion from Councillor Ramen, that kind of started this conversation, I am interested in reducing the impact on the taxpayer in the future. I do like what the mayor said on, you know, putting it towards debt. So my question would be, would this referral be looking at that aspect with putting some money, more money towards the debt just before I make this decision? Is that what is gonna be involved in here?

Or is there anything else in the referral that would be involved as well? I hear that we could be looking into business cases a little bit more. It could maybe have some impact on actually distributing the tax or the property taxes themselves. So I just wanted to see if I get some clarification on that before anything.

I’ll just provide a bit of clarification and then I’ll go to the deputy city manager. So the referral is on all the pieces. So currently it has three parts, debt reduction, infrastructure, gap reserve fund, and community investment reserve fund. The referral is to refer all of that back for discussion and reallocation.

So I can’t presume where it’s gonna land ‘cause it would be subject to the decision of council at that time. So I don’t know if Ms. Barbara wants to add anything. Thank you through the chair.

So certainly from staff’s perspective, we would not be recommending anything different. We’re following council’s policy. Now I was standing council’s policy. If the council wishes to reallocate those funds in a different manner, that’s certainly the council’s prerogative to do.

However, there are impacts as a result, given the $330 million of debt was approved. We fail this is a prudent way to proceed, but it certainly we’re in your hands to direct us how you wish to spend it. Thank you. I did speak with the budget chair.

That’s exactly what she just told me. So I just wanted to ask on the record. So I am interested in reducing the impact to the taxpayer, whether it’s through, you know, putting more money towards our debt to do that, or some other aspect I’d be interested in, but I wouldn’t be interested in referring to the entire report back. So I wouldn’t be supporting it at this time.

All right, next I have Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It wasn’t sure if you had other speakers after me, but I was interested in putting the question in regards to the referral.

Well, I think I’ll probably speak at some point. I know Councillor Stevenson wants to speak too. So others are looking to speak too. I’d still like to put the question.

So just need one more second, ‘cause although it sounds straightforward, it’s not quite according to the procedure bylaw. All right, I probably can get challenged on this one, but section 1114 outlines the qualifications for which a motion can be put. Section G prohibits motions being put, and I’ll read it, not permitted, either when a motion or an amendment on the floor involves approval of an expenditure by the council that is $1 million or greater, of which I see our decision that’s before us recommended from committee as greater than that threshold. So I’m gonna say you can’t put the question because of the size of it, and you can challenge that if you like.

I won’t challenge just for expediency sake, but I’ll take my speaking time on this amendment at this time. Absolutely, go ahead. Yeah, ‘cause we get into debate over is a referral, when no money is involved, ‘cause no decision was made monetary or not. I’m a no on the referral.

I’m already hearing Councillors talk about other emotions they might make in regards to the main motion or this. Some want to do, it seems, go back and fund, potentially $31 million of business cases. Some want to apply a certain percentage extra into debt financing, which I like that, but I’m also thrifty. Some want to refer everything back, and I know some will want to have more input from agency boards and commissions.

I will reiterate what I said earlier in the Deputy Mayor echoed, is the budget update comes in October, basically in May, and if you know that the Reserve funds are gonna have a certain amount of money in it, you might be interested in funding some business cases you liked from before. I would highly advise you identify what they are, have conversations if and should any agency boards and commissions be involved, and approach the mayor with your ideas of what you might want some of this funding to go to. That’s the process. We’re in now with a strong mayor’s budget, and if we approve money to be in that fund, you know that fund has certain amount of money in it, and we can start working forward.

I’m not interested in going backwards into the multi-year budget, as I said, we’re already going into summer, and then the fall is here, and that’s the budget update. So I’m not interested in this. I do always like debt reduction, but I’m a no, and just, since I couldn’t put the question, just asking colleagues to keep it tight, ‘cause it seems like other councils still have other ideas out there, and we still have an agenda with many items before us, and I know the mayor has other commitments tonight, so at some point, you will have to endure Deputy Mayor Lewis as the chair, which will be an endure, I mean, with all the love in the world, so just, and there’s no reason for us to be here at that late of hour, so just, I’m gonna keep it tight, I won’t be saying much from here, it’s just gonna be nose for referrals. Next, I’ll go next, and I know Councillor Stevenson, you wanna go, I only see the two of us so far, so I’ll go first, I’ll hand the chair over to Councillor Palosa.

Recognizing Mayor Morgan and timing? Yes, I expect you to time me, of course. So, I’m not gonna support the referral, although I said fully support Council wanted to do something with the Community Investment Reserve Fund, I do actually think that the debt reduction contained in this motion is incredibly important, as is the infrastructure gap piece. Later today, we’re gonna be issuing $30 million of debt at 4.42% interest over 10 years, interest that Londoners, principal interest payments, that Londoners are gonna pay.

Over the past five years, we used to get debt at 1.67%, then 1.82, then 2.6, and 3.56, 3.8, and now almost 4.5. Now is the time, if we can avoid some debt reduction, some debt, this is a good time to do it. We’re at a high watermark for interest rates, people expect the Bank of Canada to come down, debt will likely get cheaper in the future, if we have the ability with the surplus, we got additional revenues to work with. At the very least, people can add to the debt reduction if they want, with the subsequent motion, I said I’d be supportive of that, but at the very least, what’s contained with the motion already, and avoiding that debt, like I don’t wanna delay our ability to do that, right?

Like it won’t impact the debenture today, but we know we have lots of commitments. It will debt issuance avoidance, or paying down debt that has the flexibility to pay it down. In this case, it’s probably avoiding issuing new debt, given the interest rates, our staff will make very smart decisions in allocating us to the best benefit of Londoners. So I’m not gonna support the referral.

I will say to the comments about we’d like to do other things, we’d like to fund other things that maybe didn’t get funded in the budget, it’s exactly what we can do with the Community Investment Reserve Fund, if you wanna leave it in there. Leading into the annual budget update, all the things that we could look at again, that are in the budget that we could take another look at, anything we don’t know is coming yet, right? And we know that things come all the time, whether it’s interest in doing something with parking or transit pilot projects or whatever, having the ability to fund something is appropriate on a one-time basis, gives Council the flexibility to do the types of things that people seem to be desiring to do. So I think you can kind of have it all the ways on this, with a letting it apply to policy.

Maybe making a slight adjustment to the amount that we wanna set aside to cover those additional expenditures. I’m pretty open to that. I’m not really open to deferring our significant investment in debt reduction and infrastructure gap. Thank you, returning the chair to Mayor Morgan.

Okay, I don’t see anybody else, Councilor Stevenson, do you wanna go now? That doesn’t mean someone else can’t jump in, but I just don’t have any other hands up. Yeah, no, that sounds good. And I just wanna comment on the calling the question.

This is the second time that I’ve brought forward some kind of motion or amendment asked to speak at the end and had the question called. It’s totally allowed and it’s not very collegial. And it’s just, in my opinion, not so cool, but that’s where we’re at. As far as why I’m doing the referral, I see the bulk of this still following the policy, but we have an opportunity here to make a difference in people’s lives in terms of the housing stability bank, the libraries and the arts.

And I think that’s something that I wanna do. I said no because of the property tax rate. And I said at the time, I’m going to be looking for money that I can then say yes to things. And some of the counselors said, well, how is that gonna happen?

Well, here it is. There’s money available here now where we could do a one-time funding of the housing stability bank, which we did the previous year. I understand that the business cases were voted down, but this would not need a reconsideration of council to allocate some one-time money to the arts, to the library, to the housing stability bank. Maybe we allocate a little bit more to debt, I’m not sure.

But I think this is a big decision that wouldn’t hurt for us to just take another month to think about it before we say for sure. And to possibly, like I said, make a difference in people’s lives now rather than wait until the fall, the housing stability bank money was predicted to end in the middle of the year. So this would bring a lot of potential reassurance and comfort to people in a difficult time. And I still think we’d put a ton of money down in our reserves, we’re talking about small amounts in the scheme of the $31 million surplus.

And if nothing else, if we end up approving it the same as it is now, we can at least let lenders know that we gave it due and careful consideration, knowing the situation that they’re in and the amount of the surplus and the amount of the property tax rate. So I would really appreciate colleagues, even if you’re not interested in talking about this anymore, some people are. And if we could refer it for one more month, even if we end up in the same place, the reason I’m doing the referral is so that we’re not on the floor of council. I could bring up amendments to give money to the housing stability bank and to do that.

I don’t want to do it on the floor of council. So I’m suggesting the referral so that we can do it off of the floor, talk to people, find out what is wanted and then give it our best next month. So I’m asking for your support, thanks. Any other speakers, go ahead, Councilor Rama.

Thank you and through you. So I won’t be supporting the referral. And my reason for not supporting it is in the conversation around the referral we’ve been talking about changing how much we could potentially put to reserves, how much we might put to debt. And I’m not comfortable doing that.

My reason for my original amendment was to look at the Community Investment Reserve Fund. I still believe that we need to use less of that reserve fund and 7 million is a lot in that reserve fund as far as I’m concerned. And so I’m open to it going to debt or somewhere else, but that is the decision that we can make at a future date. With respect to the Housing Stability Bank, my understanding is they have run out of money.

So I’m hoping that they do come to us for some funding soon, but we’ll hopefully have some of those conversations so that we can get that in front of us, but not necessarily it doesn’t need to be based on the previous business case, it can be a new ask and request from them. So again, I think at this point, I’m comfortable moving forward and not having a referral on this. I just want to add a piece of clarification just from the Chair ‘cause Council Raman said something and I know other colleagues said something that wasn’t quite accurate, like, and I’ll get the treasure to confer this. Just so colleagues know, when something goes in the Community Investment Reserve Fund, I know some people said that you could be used during the budget time to relieve pressure.

The Community Investment Reserve Fund, once money is in there, can be spent at any point in the year by Council, any time, exactly, as Council Raman said, it’s just a couple of colleagues along the way debated, thinking it sounded me like there was a perception that you would have to wait to the annual budget update for that piece. You don’t, and I just had the treasure to confirm that that’s how the Reserve Fund works. Thank you through the Chair. So the Reserve Fund is a reserve fund.

So if this recommendation was approved, the money would be placed into the Reserve Fund. The corresponding by-law allows the Reserve Fund to be spent at the discretion of Council for what Council deems appropriate. So certainly Council could tap into a reserve fund at any time for a purpose that it deems acceptable. Okay, I just hope that provides some clarity for colleagues on how that Reserve Fund can be used.

I just heard a couple of different assumptions there. I just wanted to make sure that we all understand so that we can make all the good decisions that we want to make for ourselves. So any other speakers who haven’t spoken yet on the referral? Okay, we’re going to open the referral for voting.

Opposing the vote. Motion fails three to 11. Okay, back to the main motion for people who haven’t spoken to the main motion yet. I’m going to open the main motion for voting.

This is the Committee recommendation. Okay, I just, I know that we’re in the middle voting there. I asked a clerk to cancel the vote in the middle of voting because Councillor Cuddy, there was a piece of correspondence that came from RBC place that we have to attach to the existing Committee report. This was basically, at the time they didn’t have a piece of information, but the authorization of RBC place to take the operating circles that they had and apply it to their capital, the two places that are applying it to including their basically capital Reserve Fund.

So we need to amend the Committee’s recommendation to add that in so that they have that authorization that came from— Yes, my mistake, I apologize. Yeah, well, it’s okay ‘cause we caught it in time. So do you want to move that change and then we’ll get it up on the screen and everybody can see it. Yes, and the clerk’s already given it to me, so I’ll move that.

Okay, and seconder, Deputy Mayor Lewis. So I’ll let colleagues get that up on the screen so they can see it in case you didn’t have a chance to read it. Yeah, and I’ll just further the public, I’ll just know what it says. It’s the motion to amend to include a new Part D to read as follows.

The allocation of RBC place is 2023 year-end surplus to the RBC place renewal reserve fund to 250,000 and the RBC place operational reserve 158, 769 be approved. It being noted that communication has appended to the council agenda from the Board of Directors of the London Convention Center Corporation operating as RBC place London with respect to this matter was received. So this is an amendment to the Committee’s recommendation that’s moved and seconded any debate or discussion on that. Okay, I will open that for voting.

Just to be clear, that’s the RBC place. That’s correct, yes. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Okay, and Councillor.

Can we vote on those separately, please? Nevermind. Are you okay? What did we add it to to the— Report, like the year-end, this is the year-end operating report and includes all of the components, not just the surplus, but all the other operating actions that are being taken.

This is an action from RBC place that needs to be included in that general authorization. So I’d like to vote yes to that and no to the other part. Okay, I think we could just vote on that separately. It was the motion that we just passed was an amendment.

Now everything’s together. But if I separate the voting, we’re not having to hold a debate on this again. We’re just gonna vote on the two pieces separately. So I’ll look for a mover and a seconder.

So Councillor Cutty, you’re willing to move the as amended motion. So this will have everything but RBC place in it, okay? Everything but the piece we just added. And then the next one will be that.

So moved by Councillor Cutty, seconded by, sorry. I need to seconder ‘cause it’s an as amended motion. Let’s go ahead. Okay, all right, so we’re gonna open that for voting again.

This is everything in the report as the committee forwarded it with the exception of the amendment that we just made on RBC place. Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to two. Okay, and now the RBC place piece. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero.

Councillor Cutty. Thank you, your worship. And that concludes the seventh report, a special report of a corporate services committee. And in the interest of time, I’d like to move on to the eighth special report, special meeting of the corporate services.

Yeah, I can’t do that yet ‘cause it’s actually in the added report section. We didn’t change the order. So appreciate the effort to save time but you get to stand up again later. Sixth report of the Civic Works Committee is what we’ll go to next.

And thank you for presenting that report, Councillor Cutty. So I’ll go to the report of the Civic Works Committee and Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. I’d like to put the sixth report of Civic Works Committee on the floor. I’ve received no word to have anything pulled.

Anybody want anything pulled separately? Okay, Councillor, you can make that motion. I’d like to put all the items on the floor. I just wanna make a few comments.

The Integrated Transportation Committee Advisory Report was received. We approved a number of contracts, consultants, and accepted a petition and a request for a municipal drain. All right, any comments on the full report? Okay, seeing none, we’re gonna open up for voting.

Those in the full motion carries 14 to zero. Right, eighth report of SPPC Deputy Mayor Lewis can present that report. Thank you, worship. I am aware that colleagues may wish to vote differently on item five.

So I will remove that. I’m not aware of any other items that individuals want to vote on separately. So I’ll ask that you just canvassed to see if there’s any other items to be pulled to be dealt with separately before I move. Sure.

Councillor Stevenson, you’d like something separate? Yes, please, three. Okay, three. Anybody else want something separate?

Okay, I don’t see any other asks, so go ahead. Okay, so I will move one, two, four, six, seven, and eight. All right, any debate or discussion on those items? Seeing none, we’ll open those items for voting.

Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. And I will now put item three. That’s two, one from the Committee agenda on the floor. Okay, item three is on the floor.

I look for speakers to item three. Seeing none, we’ll open item three for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 13 to one. And I will now put item five on the floor.

Right, item five is on the floor. I’ll look for speakers. Councillor Ferrera, go ahead. Thank you, Chair.

So I guess I’d first start with some recognition and acknowledgement at first to the TV DSP for springing in this movement forward, or this motion forward. Okay, you’re speaking to it, and then you’re potentially gonna move an amendment, or just because, okay, then you’re speaking to it, and then you’re gonna move an amendment, that’s fine. But when we come back to the main motion, you’re not gonna speak again, just clarifying that. ‘Cause you’re giving me a look like you’re gonna do both.

I’m gonna move the amendment, I’ll do that. Okay, and then you can speak to the main motion later. Which amendment would you like to move? Could you articulate it?

We circulated an updated amendment to the clerk’s office earlier today. It’s pretty much the same, just a little bit of changes from feedback from the LTC. Okay, given there’s some changes, I want the amendment read out. Can read it down.

So you should be loaded now, so I want you to read the amendment, and then I’ll allow you to speak to it. Okay, so the change is actually just for part A. I just, I want you to read the whole amendment, because people at home don’t necessarily know what you’re putting on the floor, so. All right, so the full amendment as follows, that the following actions be taken with respect to a secondary school student transit pass pilot project.

Part A, that civic administration in collaboration with the London Transit Commission be directed to initiate the development of a pretending with the Thames Valley District School Board for a multi-year pilot project to provide annual transit passes to secondary students, including I, the current post-secondary student annual transit pass agreements between the City of London, Western University and Fanshawe College, and the current children under 12 ride-free program be considered as templates to establish the framework for this pilot program and be. The civic administration be directed to report back to council with a feasibility report, including recommended routes as directed by all parties, shared goals, metrics, costing, methodology for tracking results, and an appropriate secured source of financing for the pilot program. It being noted that the City of London currently subsidizes youth transit passes to provide for a discount pass for all youth riders, ages 13 to 17. Just give me a second.

All right, Councilor, with the utmost respect, the amendment you’re proposing could be able to council here. Like this is a very different amendment than what the committee recommended, one of limited scope, specific grades, specific schools. This is much broader and different. So I’m gonna say if you wanna move something like this, defeat the committee’s recommendation first.

And once the committee’s recommendation is defeated, you could move your amendment. But to me, this is different enough that it’s pretty contrary to the intent that I think the committee did, especially given the debate that we had. So I’m not saying you can’t put your motion on the floor, but I’m saying you gotta defeat what’s there first from the committee, and then you can move the amendment. And so I’m gonna rule that, and people can challenge that if they like, but it’s my opinion that this is different from what the committee forwarded enough that we should defeat the committee’s recommendation and replace it with this, which I would allow you to do, but that’s the order that I’m gonna rule that you would have to do to proceed.

Okay, I’ll take the chairs, move on that, so. Okay, so we won’t have the amendment now, but you, good job of everybody knowing where you wanna go. So if you wanna speak to the main motion, I’d assume you’re probably speaking against it for, but do you wanna speak now, or ‘cause you haven’t spoken to the main yet? You’ll wait, okay, who wants to speak to the main motion?

Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. So I’m gonna take this opportunity to speak to the main motion, and I’ve circulated some additional materials, colleagues this morning via email, so that you had the visual representations that I am gonna be referring to. And I would say that I appreciate your ruling, Your Worship, because otherwise, I would have felt the obligation to challenge the chair on that ‘cause I see where Councilor Ferrera wants to go, but I do think that that’s substantively different than what’s before you today.

And I wanna start with really underscoring something really, really key to this. Anything other than what we have before us from the committee would actually potentially also run contrary to the motion passed by the Thames Valley District School Board in February of this year. And in their first motion, they were very specific, a boat, the detail of logistics for a two-year pilot in collaboration with the Thames Valley District School Board, London Transit Commission and the City of London to provide students entering grade nine at Clark Road Secondary School. So it was very specific, the motion passed by the school board at their meeting.

They also passed a motion to submit a delegation request, and obviously we received their delegation at committee, and that the chair write a letter on behalf of the trustees to the province of Ontario, which again, they indicated to us when they presented their delegation that they have done. So this morning, I circulated some supplementary information to colleagues, including a slide deck that illustrated the nine transit routes that feed Clark Road Secondary School that literally dropped students off 200 meters from the front door at Argyle Mall, where we have, although we don’t have the designation, I would actually like the designation of a transit village, but we don’t have a designation there, although I think it’d be an appropriate place to have one. However, nine routes feeding that school. I also circulated to you three photos that were taken this morning from my own front yard where transit has a stop, ‘cause we’ve heard some things about crush load capacity.

And these were taken at 738. This time stamped them on the title, so they were all between 730 and 8 a.m., and you can see that not only did we not have people standing in the buses, there were actually empty seats on the buses. This would be the time period at which students would be traveling to Clark Road. So based on, you know, that picture’s worth a thousand words and seeing with your own eyes is believing, there is capacity on these routes.

Now, I will say that other routes may have higher ridership than the seven does currently, although this seven is so convenient that it’s actually one of those routes I would identify as an inefficiency for the auditor because right across the road from me on the north side of Wavell, we have two transit stops that are within 200 meters of each other at each end of East Lions Park. But if other routes are at a higher capacity, I would hazard that those would be the 94 and the two, which both run along Dundas, and which are unlikely to pick up a whole lot of students because there’s not a whole lot of residential on Dundas heading to Clark Road. It’s back in the neighborhoods. It’s on the 35, it’s on the seven, it’s on the three.

That’s where the students live, not a long Dundas itself. So I really want to emphasize that if we do something that’s not consistent with the board’s motion, the board would have to go back, go through their process again, pass another motion and we’re guaranteeing that we’re not doing anything this year. And again, both in the motion that Councilor Cuddy and I brought forward and in the board’s motion, the striving is for effective of September of 2024. So if we’re not doing it, then just don’t do it.

But let’s not say that we’re gonna do something different and still have it in place for 2024 ‘cause we won’t. That is really at the crux of this. I wanted you to see with your own eyes, there are capacity opportunities on these buses. There are seats available right now.

There are opportunities to pursue this with the school board as a willing pilot partner, pilot project partner on this. So I’m asking you, stay with the committee’s recommendation, move this forward. Let’s try. I don’t presume what the results are gonna be.

I know there’ll be ridership slips. So some of the riders that are on these routes right now are already counted for because some of these students already have bus passes. By going through the school, they won’t be purchasing those directly. They’ll be getting them through the program.

So there’ll be some riderslippage that’s gotta be factored in. But when we hear about crush loads, what we’ve got to really ask is where on the route and the route that I’m referring to in the images that I shared with you, number seven. That goes all the way from West Mount Mall to Hargile Mall. It may be busy leaving West Mount Mall and coming through the downtown, but by the time it hits Highbury Ave, getting students to Clark Road, you’ve seen the images yourself.

There’s space on the buses. And that would be true with a lot of these. There may be crush loads at a peak point in the route, but it is where those crush loads are that matter, not because they’re not for the whole route. People get on and off the bus.

And because the hourly average might be a percentage, doesn’t mean that every stop along the way is that case. And so when you look at the Clark Road catchment area, when you look at the nine routes that serve the students at Clark Road, you’re not going to find, respectfully, a better school in Thames Valley School Board System to try this at. There are other schools that are gonna have four routes, five routes, but not nine. So I’m asking you to support the committee recommendation today.

Let’s try it. We can adjust if we need to along the way. Other speakers, go ahead, Councillor Ferriero. Hi, thank you, Chair.

So I did take a look at the pictures that were sent to us. And I would identify that that is route seven as the deputy mayor is clearly indicated. And that is actually the least concerned route for me because he is correct. That route stretches beyond outside of the catchment area of Clark Road Secondary School.

It goes all the way up here. And it’s not a route that I’m necessarily concerned with. The routes that I’m concerned with would be route 35, route five, route three, and, you know, like if we look at route 35, that is within the attendance area of Clark Road Secondary School. The full route is within the attendance area.

So that route will definitely be used if we use this project. And that route at peak time in the morning, six to nine in the morning, is 134% capacity. At peak time in the afternoon, two to six PM, is 150% capacity. That’s a full bus load and people standing.

And when we start considering, you know, students coming on these buses that are already at capacity. They’re carrying bags. They’re carrying instruments. You know, you’re going to have less space to stand in the bus.

And what are you going to see with that? You’re going to see our current ridership being crowded out again, like we’ve been discussing previously. That’s the concern. If we look also to the ability for LTC to put in a tripper bus or anything like that, they don’t have that.

We simply just don’t have the bus. Right now, tomorrow, actually, at the commission, we’re going to be going with a staff recommendation for an RFP that came through to purchase new replacement buses for the LTC. And what’s really interesting in that report is the lead time for that is 16 months. There is no way we are going to get a new bus without waiting less than 16 months.

And that is also completely pivoting on the fact that the global supply chain or any type of supply chains that will involve that type of assembly or the buses themselves is going to be in order. And we’re not going to have any issues with that. And we all know that, you know, our supply chains, especially lately, have been a little bit in flux. So 16 months would be the earliest time.

That means we’re not going to hit that deadline. And that means that we’re going to potentially, especially on this route specifically, we’re going to crowd out current riders. So that’s an issue for me. Route 5 has the same issue.

It’s not as much, but it’s still at capacity at the afternoon peak. Route 3 has the same thing. So this is what I’m saying. I understand that the TVDSB has done good work.

They’ve identified the school that works for them. But we need the LTC to also identify the routes and the capacities and work together. So there’s a range here. There’s, you know, when we’re working in collaboration to find a pilot project that actually works, there’s going to be a range.

We’re going to have the ideals of the TVDSB. We’re going to have the ideals of the LTC. That’s all driven by data. And we’re going to find that middle ground.

That’s what the compromise is. That’s what it’s all about. This is why I will not be supporting this, and this is why you saw the motion that we brought that is that I’m hoping that we can actually approve. These are the concerns that I have.

I’d also say, you know, like looking at buses that may not be at capacity, you know, pictures speak of thousand words, but the location where those buses were taken were, you know, for this situation are within walking distance of the school. So any students that may be using the bus at that location may not be getting on the bus. They may walk. So that’s, I guess, where I’ll stop it for now, but I do hope that we can vote this down because, you know, if we’re looking for a pilot project that is supposed to not only be successful, but also be able to have the ability to expand and be successful in that expansion in the future, you know, this is why we need to have both parties at the table to be able to come up with this pilot project.

So this is the intent that I would like to see. I would like to see us move forward and actually build a pilot project that would definitely be successful. That will absolutely be able to be expanded. And this is what I’m asking your boss what to do.

So I’m hoping that we can vote this motion down as it is. And I’m hoping that we can approve the motion that I hopefully can be able to bring to the floor. Okay, other speakers, Councillor Cady, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you.

I’d like to remind my colleagues that this is, these are hourly averages and school that’s out at 2.30, not at 6 or 6.30. So we wouldn’t be seeing a crush loads at those time. I’d also like to mention something that this isn’t a novel project that Deputy Mayor Lewis and I have created with the Thames Valley District School Board. This is actually a proven program that has succeeded in Halifax and Kingston, believe in Saskatchewan and Saskatoon.

I also think in BC. So there’s actually a track record of success. And despite the Councillor’s best efforts to maybe prolong this, as Deputy Mayor Lewis said, we will never have an opportunity to get this launched this year. And we also have a willing partner, I might add, in the TV as DSB.

And they are willing to work with us to make sure this is a successful program. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this. This is something that’s really important for our city and important for our students. Thank you.

I have Councillor Stevenson next and Councillor Hopkins. Thank you. You know, while I appreciate my colleagues working on this project, I have said, and I said at committee, that I’m stupefied really, how LTC wasn’t hurt of this. And to have a willing partner in TVDSB is one thing, but to not have LTC, and some of the comments feel disrespectful to a commission, that again, isn’t here to defend itself again.

So we heard concerns about the capacity on the buses. We heard concerns about the route and the timing. And I would, I’m not gonna support this motion. I will support the one by Councillor Ferreira if it comes forward because I do think if we truly are wanting to have a high school pilot project, we’d be better to have a bit more space and generalization in the wording of the motion to allow LTC’s input and have something come forward.

Otherwise it could not go forward just because we’ve been too specific without including them, which really I thought there’d be some general policy or a collegialness about that, that we would include the party who’s actually gonna have to run this. So I’m a little concerned about the rush on this. It was an added agenda item. We saw it 24 hours before it came to committee.

We haven’t heard from LTC. What we have heard on the news is that they do have several, fairly major concerns with this. So as much as I appreciate my colleagues efforts on this, I will not be supporting it. Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And I did support the deputy mayor’s motion, a committee, but I had grave concerns that the LTC was not part of the conversation and that we should hear back. I agree, Councillor Cuddy, it’s a great program, for sure. I think we want a program in our city and for our students.

So my concern is that we’re not the experts as a former commissioner of LTC. I would like to hear what LTC has. The fact that the Thames Valley District School Board supported a route on Clark Road, that’s well and good. Doesn’t mean that we have to follow that recommendation.

It’s a pilot project, pilot projects can start at any time. So if this recommendation coming out of committee is defeated I will be supporting the council affairs motion and underlining the importance that LTC should be here at this table and I think it will do that. And I will not be supporting the committee recommendation. Councillor Preble.

Thank you. So at the committee meeting, I did not support this and I didn’t support it because of the comments that were made in regards of the LTC. And I do think that the worst decisions I made, always what I call about you without you. And that’s how I felt without the LTC and with this TV DSB.

Having said that, there is another second motion that potentially is going to come forward but when I found out, guess what? It wasn’t consulted with LTC either. So we really don’t have, I have some feedback. After the first one, I did have a chance to speak to the LTC but I did not get a feedback on the second one.

But bottom line is this, if I look at it this way, if we go with the second one, nothing is happening this year. For me, the most important is LTC, their data, their study, their feasibility when it comes back to us. The first motion gives us a chance to start something this year. If we go with the second one, either way it’s not happening.

So we are not losing any time. So I’m looking at it pragmatically. I will support it. I will support this motion that’s out there because that’s the only thing that potentially gives us a chance to start this September.

With the second one, we got nothing to lose, nothing to gain. If LTC comes back to us and they say clock road is not in, it doesn’t make sense for us. It’s not going to work. We can still go to the B and we can figure it out because it’s not going to happen this September.

But one thing I want to add is that even I certainly hope whatever we select is going to be successful. But I want to say one thing and I said it already last week. I do not agree with zero fees for the riders. And I also don’t agree that TVDSB shouldn’t be looking or either board which will take advantage of it.

They certainly should be looking into decreasing the number of yellow buses, school buses because we got to save the money somewhere for the taxpayer. But again, option B that if we decline this one, nothing is happening this year. If we accept it, we have a chance this year. With B, we have nothing to gain.

Nothing is happening this year. Please consider that way and I’m the one who actually voted against it last week. Thank you, Councillor Ramen. Thank you and through you, I won’t be supporting the motion that’s in front of us today and alternatively hoping that the committee defeats what’s on the floor so that we can address the additional what was going to be an amendment but is coming as a separate motion.

And I’ll explain why first with the utmost respect and gratitude to my colleagues as a stated in the letter as well and to the trustees at Thames Valley District School Board. I appreciate the willingness and desire to move quickly on this matter and I appreciate the sincere effort to get buses passes into hands of students this fall. I think that’s a great starting point for the conversation around an MOU. However, I do not think that without the input fully of LTC on where and how, it’s fair for us to move forward with the discussion.

Within the feasibility study discussion with LTC. And again, this is from my conversation with LTC following our meeting. My understanding is that the numbers that were given the information that was supplied to Thames Valley District School Board at the time was only a one way conversation at the time. It was here’s some roads that had opportunity or had space but that was in the summer of 2023.

And what we’ve seen is that that has changed, that picture has changed for LTC, that’s my understanding. Concerning though for me is that their commission hasn’t had a chance to have a fulsome discussion about this matter. My understanding is there’s an opportunity for that to happen a verbal update coming this month and then tomorrow and then a report in May. So again, I think they wanna move expeditiously as well on this.

So again, a shared goal. But when you have two partners that come to the table and then try to bring the other along, especially one that has a very large role in the role out of this. I think that it can sometimes muddy the waters. It can create issues on how the project or the pilot rolls out.

So again, wanting to ensure that the work happens and ensure that it moves forward. I think that just by removing some of the conditions and making it more open ended so that everyone can come to the table with a solution that’s proposed in the MOU allows for that discussion equal footing as that discussion’s taking place. So again, I won’t be supporting what’s in front of us for that reason. I appreciate that there was some thought given to the ropes.

I appreciate that there were some thoughts given to even how we go about the student annual transit pass agreement and directionally looking at how that’s done at other institutions. But again, I wanna point to the fact that those passes are for all riders. And this motion as it stands right now as a pilot project is not for all riders nor do we have a funding source that points to it being in the future for all riders. So for that perspective as well, I do think that we need to look at that from the perspective of how do we ensure that there is part of that objective to make it for all riders as part of the underlying MOU and the philosophy moving forward.

So again, I just wanted to crystallize that for our discussion around an MOU because I do think that that piece is very important to everyone within the system. But again, I do think it respectfully, we have to hear from LTC. Any other speakers? Okay.

So this is on the committee’s recommendation. So we’ve had debate on that. I know if it’s defeated, we can entertain the other motion. If it passes, then that’s the decision.

So we’re voting on the committee’s recommendation currently and I’ll open that vote. Close on the vote. Motion carries eight to six. Okay, so the committee’s recommendation carries.

I’ll go back to the deputy mayor on the report generally. That completes the eighth report of SPPC and I will turn it back over to you chair. Councilor Cady, this is your chance now and the added report of CSC. So I’ll let you present that.

Thank you, your worship and through you. We’ve been busy at corporate services. We had an eighth special meeting of corporate service committee and we only had a wide item on the agenda, 4.1. And I’d like to respectfully move that motion.

Okay, so the call committee report on the floor is there any discussion or questions on that? Seeing none, we can do open that for voting. Just a small technical issue, we’ll be ready to open the vote once in a couple seconds. Councillor Stevenson, closing the vote.

Motion carries 13 to zero, noting that Councilor Hopkins is left. Right, thank you for that. Deferred matters, we have none, inquiries, being none. There’s no, oh wait, we got one.

Go ahead, Councilor Robinson, sorry. Thank you and through you. And sorry for the last minute nature of the inquiry, but I did wanna follow up on the train fire that took place yesterday downtown. My understanding, and again, through media reports, is that we had a very swift reaction by 25 of our firefighters and thank you for their service.

But I’m just wondering, my inquiry is related to what information is being shared with the city and how we will be learning from this experience and what next steps do we see taking place? Look, and I’m trying to see who, where do you want me to start? Mr. Parity, go ahead.

So, thank you for the question through the chair. Our emergency management staff are currently in the process of scheduling a debrief with all the partner agencies, first responder services and CPKC staff to bring them all to the table and see what lessons learned that we can take away from this to move forward with. Go ahead. Thank you.

I appreciate that answer. I look forward to learning more. I think there are some significant concerns coming from the community, specifically around chemical releases in the air, potential harm, as well as how we respond as a city, what kind of notifications people were given in the area, whether or not they were receiving notices from emergency management about avoiding the area and et cetera. So, I do think that there are some key learnings.

I do think there are ongoing discussions that need to happen with CPKC as to their responsibility when they are within the cities and they have level crossings like this. I think that the expectation from the public is that more will be heard in the coming days. I know, Mr. Parity, I know I think Jeopardy Chief Hayes is on the line too now.

So, I’m not sure if he has any additional contacts. I know that there’s a well organized, very comprehensive debrief happening. I’ll see if there’s any additional information you can give us at this time, based on Councilor Romans and Quarry. Yes, so through the chair.

So, all of the fire incident, fire related communications, any communications to come up from the incident commander on scene, whether it’s police on scene first or fire on scene first. Those are typical questions that the actual organization would answer. So, yes, Deputy Chief Hayes is with us that can provide a little bit further information on the communications piece, if you wish. Deputy Chief Hayes, I’ll look to you if you have anything to add to that.

Thank you very much. I would further add that in our normal communications for any significant event that will be happening within the city, our normal operations will be to provide information through social media, through media sources that we have, and then through our key contacts within the city administration as well, to pass on to their respective groups. And so, in this case, for this train that happened as well. And unfortunately, been later at night, does not, we’re able to put out messaging about staying indoors, if at all possible, and avoiding the area.

All right, Councillor Ramen, any other inquiry? Thank you. And I appreciate that members of council, we just received communication this afternoon at three o’clock about this. But I just, again, wanted to note that that, you know, I do think we should have protocols in place and have some more notice because residents were quite concerned, and I appreciate the follow-up from this conversation.

Thank you. Great, thank you. Any other inquiries, Councillor Troso? May I follow up on the last one?

Is it the same inquiry? Yes. Okay. I just wanna briefly say that I too received a lot of concern from people, particularly in the southern part of my ward that gets closer to Oxford Street.

And I do wanna commend, I do wanna commend the work of our fire services. That goes without saying. Having said that, though, I have a lot of concerns here about the relationship between the city and the railroad, and I know that it’s often said that this is a matter of federal jurisdiction, so there’s not much we can say about it. But coming off of this, though, I’m wondering, would this be community and protective services if we were gonna get a report in terms of our relationship with the railroad going forward, or would it be SPPC or where would that go?

Through the chair, community and protective services covers emergency services, encompassing emergency management, EMS, fire services, and police, so I would suggest caps would be appropriate. Thank you, I like that answer ‘cause I’m on caps, and I’m very interested in this question, so thank you, thank you very much. I mean, there are a variety of other questions that I could raise, which I’m not gonna do. This is just an inquiry, this is not a committee report.

Some of them may even involve going into closed session, so I’m just gonna leave it at this for now, just to say, I anticipate that many of my constituents expect me to be giving them information beyond what’s in the press releases, and I would just like to be as prepared as possible to be able to do that, thank you. Okay, I appreciate that, I’ll just remind colleagues, inquiry is to ask a question, you had an answer, it’s not like that, it isn’t a committee meeting, we’re not gonna make a bunch of decisions off of it, we can make one kind of motion based off of it, but I, you know, appropriate use of asking a really timely question while we’re at council to get a quick answer, there’ll be obviously lots more opportunity through the committee structure to either receive more information, and it doesn’t need to wait for the committee structure if there’s more information that’s gonna be put out to the community, I know the emergency services have that capacity to do so as well, so I think you’ll see a number of pieces here, so thank you colleagues for the question today, I think that helps with the initial questions that people might be feeling, it gives you a little more sense on the process to get some more details. With that, I think we’ve moved past inquiries and we’re on to emergent motions, there are none, bylaws, I know we for sure have to deal with 134 separately based on a declared conflict, I’ll look to see if colleagues want any of the other bylaws dealt with separately, otherwise I’m gonna do the rest of them together, can’t assert Troso. I would like 113.8 bill 132 with respect to 735 Wonderland Road pulled separately.

Okay, so I think if it’s the Wonderland Road piece, there’s 132 and 152 relate to that, so you want those two dealt with separately? The two of them could be together but separate from everything else. Absolutely, so 152 and 132. Okay, anything else separate?

Okay, then let’s try to do everything with the exception of 132, 134 and 152. Those will be dealt with after we’ll put everything else floor, if that’s okay with everybody. Any other changes before I get that ready? ‘Cause if I’m ever gonna see your screen on are you gonna make a change or am I okay to proceed?

I was just prepared to move into favor. Excellent, okay, you’re moving everything except for the ones identified, right? That’s correct, so you’re willing to move that? Yes, I will.

Thank you for doing that. I’m gonna be under for first reading of all those, Councillor Ferreira. Okay, we’re gonna open that for voting as soon as it’s ready. Councillor Trostai, your mic is still on, if you could just turn that off for me.

Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Okay, second reading of all those. I see Councillor Layman willing to move that, Councillor Cudi’s willing to second that. Any discussion on second reading?

Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Lewis, closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Okay, third reading which includes all of those numbers plus the third reading of a drainage by-law, which we’ve had before, where we do third reading at a different time. So everything we just did plus the drainage one, look for a mover and a seconder, move by Councillor Hillier.

And seconded by Councillor Palosa. That’s third reading, so we’ll just open it for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. All right, next we’ll do the Wonderland Road, the two bills together.

So I’ll look for a mover for those two. Councillor Cudi, seconded by Councillor Hillier. All right, we’ll open first reading. Losing the vote, motion carries 11 to two.

All right, second reading of these two. I’ll look for mover, Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Stevenson. Any discussion? Councillor Troso.

I won’t repeat everything I said to the chair in my first five minutes, plus what I said on the amendments. I just wanna make sure that it’s clear that everybody who’s listening to this understands my ongoing concern, not just about this particular by-law, but others that are certainly likely to come up. And I think by passing this today, we aren’t over the hump in terms of this type of issue. We have to address this.

And in my view, we have to address this in a more fulsome way than we have done. And I’ll just leave it at that for today. All right, any other comments? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open the second reading for voting.

Closing the vote, motion carries 11 to two. Third reading, moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Pribble. I will open third reading for voting. And carries 11 to two.

Okay, first reading of bill 134, which is the application to expropriate land related to the East London Link Project. Look for a mover and a seconder. Councillor Cudi, seconded by Councillor Troso. We’ll open first reading for voting.

Closing the vote, motion carries 10 to two with one recuse. All right, second reading on this. Councillor Frayer, Councillor Frank. Any discussion on second reading?

Seeing none, we’ll open second reading for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 10 to two with one recuse. All right, third and final reading of this. Moved by Councillor Cudi, seconded by Councillor Ferra.

We’ll open the third reading for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 10 to two with one recuse. All right, that concludes by-laws. We have a motion to adjourn.

I’ll look for someone to move that. Councillor Ferra, seconded by Councillor Frank. We can do this one by hand. All those in favor?

No, motion carries. All right, we’re adjourned. Thank you.