May 14, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:03 PM; it being noted that Councillor S. Hillier was in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by A. Hopkins

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

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.1/9/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.2/9/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.3/9/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.4/9/CSC)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

That Council convenes In Closed Session, from 1:08 PM to 1:16 PM.

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

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the Minutes of the 8th Special Meeting and 9th Meeting of the Municipal Council, held on April 17, 2024, and April 23, 2024, respectively, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

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

6.1    Core Area Parking Incentives Extension

  1. S. Campbell and Board of Ark Aid Street Mission 

  2. (ADDED) B. Maly, Executive Director and S. Collyer, Board Chair - Downtown London

6.2    Request for One-Time Funding for Ark Aid

  1. N. Vrbos

6.3    379-390 Hewitt Street and 748 King Street (Z-9718)

  1. (ADDED) Luka Kot - Medallion Developments Inc.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   9th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2024-05-06 CSC Report 9

Motion made by H. McAlister

That the 9th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by H. McAlister

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) Respectful Workplace Policy and Workplace Violence Prevention Procedure Annual Report January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2023

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports, the report regarding the Respectful Workplace Policy (Anti-Harassment/Anti-Discrimination) and Workplace Violence Prevention Procedure BE RECEIVED for information purposes.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) 2023 Compliance Report in Accordance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy

Motion made by H. McAlister

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

 

a)    the administrative contract awards for Professional Consulting Services with an aggregate total greater than $100,000, as per Section 15.1 (g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, decentralized from Purchasing and Supply that have been reported to the Senior Manager, Procurement and Supply and have been reviewed for compliance to the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, BE RECEIVED for information, as appended to the staff report dated May 6, 2024 as Appendix “A”;

b)    the list of administrative contract awards for Tenders with a value up to $6,000,000 that do not have an irregular result, as per Section 13.2 (c) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, BE RECEIVED for information, as appended to the staff report dated May 6, 2024 as Appendix “B”; and

c)    the City Treasurer, or delegate, BE DELEGATED authority to, at any time, refer questions concerning compliance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy to the City’s internal auditor. The City Treasurer, or delegate, is hereby further authorized to ratify and confirm completed awards or purchases between $15,000 and $50,000 where the City Treasurer or delegate is of the opinion that the awards or purchases were in the best interests of the Corporation.

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.3) Association of Municipalities Ontario - Board of Directors, Large Urban Caucus - Councillor A. Hopkins

Motion made by H. McAlister

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) Board of Directors:

a)    Councillor A. Hopkins BE ENDORSED to stand for election to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) Board of Directors, Large Urban Caucus, for the 2024/2026 term;

b)    subject to Councillor A. Hopkins’ successful election to the AMO Board of Directors, Large Urban Caucus, all associated cost to attend the Board of Directors meetings, AMO Conferences and other related commitments (Task Forces, Executive Committee, etc.) for the 2024/2026 term BE APPROVED for reimbursement by The Corporation of the City of London outside of her annual expense allocation; and

c)    Councillor A. Hopkins BE REIMBURSED up to $500 for campaign-related expenses outside of Councillor A. Hopkins’ annual expense allocation, upon submission of eligible receipts.

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (3.1) Presentation - Property Assessment and Tax System - Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Motion made by H. McAlister

That it BE NOTED that the Corporate Services Committee heard an update from B. Slater and A. Haines, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) with respect to the revised property assessment and tax system, as appended to the added agenda.

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (4.1) Consideration of Appointments to the London Community Advisory Committees

Motion made by H. McAlister

That the consideration of appointments to the following London Community Advisory Committees BE REFERRED to the May 28, 2024 meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee:

  •    Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee;

  •    Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee;    

  •    Ecological Community Advisory Committee;

  •    Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee; and

  •    Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee.

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (4.2) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Day of Remembrance of Our London Family

Motion made by H. McAlister

That based on the application from Muslim Wellness Network, June 6, 2024 BE PROCLAIMED Day of Remembrance of Our London Family.

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (4.3) Application - Issuance of Proclamation – June 1984 Sikh Genocide

Motion made by H. McAlister

That based on the application dated April 14, 2024 from London Sikh Youth Alliance and United Sikhs London Chapter, June 1 - 10, 2024 BE PROCLAIMED June 1984 Sikh Genocide.

Motion Passed

8.1.9   (4.4) Issuance of Proclamation - November 1984 Sikh Genocide

Motion made by H. McAlister

That based on the application dated April 14, 2024 from London Sikh Youth Alliance and United Sikhs London Chapter, October 31 - November 5, 2024 BE PROCLAIMED November 1984 - Sikh Genocide.

Motion Passed

8.1.10   (4.5) Issuance of Proclamation - Orange Shirt Day/National Day for Truth and Reconciliation

Motion made by H. McAlister

That based on the application dated April 17, 2024 from City of London Indigenous Employee Resource Group, September 30, 2024 BE PROCLAIMED Orange Shirt Day/National Day for Truth and Reconciliation.

Motion Passed

8.1.11   (4.6) Issuance of Proclamation - Life as a Refugee (LAAR) 2024

Motion made by H. McAlister

That based on the application dated April 23, 2024 from the Cross-Cultural Learners Centre (CCLC) and our community partners College Boreal, London Public Library, LUSO Community Services and Pillar Nonprofit Network, June 20, 2024 BE PROCLAIMED Life As A Refugee (LAAR) 2024.

Motion Passed

8.2   6th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2024-04-29 CPSC Report

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 6th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of item 7(2.5).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) 4th Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 4th Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on April 4, 2024, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) Data Regarding Impacts of Asylum Claimants on London’s Emergency Shelter System

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the staff report, dated April 29, 2024, with respect to Data Regarding the Impacts of Asylum Claimants on London’s Emergency Shelter System, BE RECEIVED. (2024-S12)

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.3) RBB Innovations Ltd. (o/a One Human Service Network “OneHSN”) Agreement

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated April 29, 2024, related to RBB Innovations Ltd. (o/a One Human Service Network “OneHSN”) Agreement:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 14, 2024, to:

i)    APPROVE the Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, between RBB Innovations Ltd. (o/a One Human Services Network) and The Corporation of the City of London for a web-based solution to support a centralized child care information and waitlist system (“Childcare Connect”);

ii)    AUTHORIZE the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Agreement;

iii)    DELEGATE authority to the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or their written designate, to approve renewals and amendments to this Agreement on that condition that same:

A)    are consistent with the requirements contained in the Agreement approved under section 1 of the above-noted by-law;

B)     do not require additional funding or are provided for in the City’s current budget; and,

C)     do not increase the indebtedness or liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London;

iv)    AUTHORIZE the Civic Administration to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in relation to this project, and,

b)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into or amending a Purchase of Service Agreement with the program. (2024-L04A)

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (2.4) London Fire Department Fire Master Plan Action Plan - Annual Update

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the staff report dated April 29, 2024, with respect to the London Fire Department Fire Master Plan Action Plan Annual Update, BE RECEIVED. (2024- P16)

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (2.6) 2023-2024 Multi-Sector Service Accountability Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London (Dearness Home) and Ontario Health

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated April 29, 2024, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 14, 2024, to:

a)    APPROVE the Multi-Sector Service Accountability Agreement (“M-SAA”) for the period April 1, 2023 to March 31, 2024, to be entered into with Ontario Health with respect to the Adult Day Program at the Dearness Home, as appended to the above-noted by-law, and AUTHORIZE the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Agreement; and,

b)    DELEGATE to the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development and the City Manager, the power to approve execute such further and other documents, including agreements, that may be required in furtherance of the above-noted M-SAA Agreement, or any future Multi-Sector Service Accountability Agreement that are consistent with the requirements contained in the above-noted M-SAA; it being noted that the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or the City Manager, as the case may be, shall provide a copy of fully executed documents to the City Clerk. (2024-L04A)

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (2.5) Core Area Parking Incentives Extension

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated April 29, 2024, related to the Core Area Parking Incentives Extension:

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

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to look further into the issues contained within the attached submission from Ark Aid London that was distributed to members of council;

it being noted that the communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from B. Maly and S.A. Collyer, R. Bernardi and G. Gastaldi, with respect to this matter, were received. (2024- T02)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That the motion BE AMENDED to include the following new parts:

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to implement a free 1-hour on-street parking program for the Core Area until the end of 2024;

d) the financing for a free 1-hour on-street parking program for the Core Area, in the estimated amount of $300,000, BE APPROVED from the Economic Development Reserve Fund;

e) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to implement a free 1-hour parking pilot program for Municipal Lot #1 and #2 in Old East Village until the end of 2024;

f) the financing for a free 1-hour parking pilot program for Municipal Lot #1 and #2 in Old East Village, in the estimated amount of $30,000, BE APPROVED from the Economic Development Reserve Fund;

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That parts a) and b) BE APPROVED to read as follows:

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

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to look further into the issues contained within the attached submission from Ark Aid London that was distributed to members of council;

it being noted that the communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from B. Maly and S.A. Collyer, R. Bernardi and G. Gastaldi, with respect to this matter, were received. (2024- T02)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That parts c), d), e) and f) BE APPROVED to read as follows:

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to implement a free 1-hour on-street parking program for the Core Area until the end of 2024;

d) the financing for a free 1-hour on-street parking program for the Core Area, in the estimated amount of $300,000, BE APPROVED from the Economic Development Reserve Fund;

e) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to implement a free 1-hour parking pilot program for Municipal Lot #1 and #2 in Old East Village until the end of 2024;

f) the financing for a free 1-hour parking pilot program for Municipal Lot #1 and #2 in Old East Village, in the estimated amount of $30,000, BE APPROVED from the Economic Development Reserve Fund;

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Item 7, clause 2.5, as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated April 29, 2024, related to the Core Area Parking Incentives Extension:

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

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to look further into the issues contained within the attached submission from Ark Aid London that was distributed to members of council;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to implement a free 1-hour on-street parking program for the Core Area until the end of 2024;

d)    the financing for a free 1-hour on-street parking program for the Core Area, in the estimated amount of $300,000, BE APPROVED from the Economic Development Reserve Fund;

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to implement a free 1-hour parking pilot program for Municipal Lot #1 and #2 in Old East Village until the end of 2024;

f)    the financing for a free 1-hour parking pilot program for Municipal Lot #1 and #2 in Old East Village, in the estimated amount of $30,000, BE APPROVED from the Economic Development Reserve Fund;

it being noted that the communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from B. Maly and S.A. Collyer, R. Bernardi and G. Gastaldi, with respect to this matter, were received. (2024- T02)

8.3   7th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2024-04-30 CWC Report

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 7th Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of items 6 (2.5), 7 (2.6 ), 8 (2.7) and 11 (4.1).

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) 5th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 5th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee (ITCAC), from the meeting held on April 17, 2024:

a)    request for delegation status for the Chair of the ITCAC, at an upcoming Governance Working Group meeting, with respect to the recommendations contained within the ITCAC Last Term (2022-2023) Report, BE FORWARDED to the GWG for consideration; it being noted that the Municipal Council resolution, from the meeting held on April 2, 2024, with respect to the 3rd Report of the ITCAC, was received; and,

b)    clauses 1.1, 2.1, 3.1 and 3.3 to 3.5 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) 5th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 5th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee (ESACAC), from the meeting held on April 3, 2024:

a)    N. Musicco, Manager, Policy and Special Operations, BE INVITED to a future ESACAC meeting with respect to the Business Licensing By-law; it being noted that the EACAC held a general discussion with respect to invasive species and the Business Licensing By-law; and,

b)    clauses 1.1, 3.1, 5.1 and 5.2 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.3) Contract Award: Tender RFT-2024-039 - Colonel Talbot Road Two Lane Upgrade

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 30, 2024, related to Contract Award: Tender RFT-2024-039 for the Colonel Talbot Road Two Lane Upgrade:

a)    the bid submitted by J-AAR Civil Infrastructures Limited, at its tendered price of $17,643,353.17 (excluding HST), BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by J-AAR Civil Infrastructures Limited was the lowest of seven bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements, in accordance with Section 13.2 of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    AECOM Canada Ltd., BE AUTHORIZED to complete the contract administration and construction inspection for this project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $1,546,230.00 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to approve Memorandums of Understanding between The Corporation of the City of London and private property owners and public utilities in relation to the cost-sharing of servicing works contained within the Colonel Talbot Road Two Lane Upgrade project;

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

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

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

g)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract for the material to be supplied and the work to be done relating to this project (RFT-2024-039); and,

h)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-T04)

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.4) Approval of Roster of Vendors for Wastewater Solids Disposal Services

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 30, 2024, related to Approval of a Roster of Ventdors for Wastewater Solids Disposal Services:

a)    the roster for various solids disposal services BE APPROVED as submitted in accordance with Article 12.2.b of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project. (2024-E07)

Motion Passed

8.3.9   (2.8) SS-2024-106 - Supply and Delivery of Traffic Paint

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 30, 2024, related to SS-2024-106 for the Supply and Delivery of Traffic Paint:

a)    approval hereby BE GIVEN to enter a three (3) year contract for the supply and delivery of traffic paint to Sherwin Williams, at the quoted price of $147,040 per year; it being noted that the pricing was provided through participation in the Elgin/Middlesex/Oxford Purchasing Co-Operative (EMOP) and is therefore a single source purchase as per section 14.4 g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy which states “it is advantageous to the City to acquire the goods or services from a supplier pursuant to the procurement process conducted by another public body”;

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with these contracts;

c)    approval, hereby given, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation negotiating satisfactory prices, terms, and conditions with Sherwin Williams to the satisfaction of the Manager of Purchasing and Supply and the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure; and,

d)    approval, hereby given, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or having a purchase order relating to the subject matter of this approval. (2024-T06)

Motion Passed

8.3.10   (2.9) SS-2024-098 - Single Source Purchase of Energreen Tractor Mower

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated April 30, 2024, related to SS-2024-098 for the Single Source Purchase of an Energreen Tractor Mower:

a)    approval BE GIVEN to execute a Single Source purchase in accordance with Section 14.4 (e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the single source negotiated price BE ACCEPTED to purchase one (1) Energreen ILF Alpha F11 Tractor Mower for a total estimated price of $518,699.82 (excluding HST) from Colvoy Equipment;

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

d)    the approval, hereby given, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or having a purchase order, or contract record relating to the subject matter of this approval in accordance with Sections 14.4(e) and 14.5(a)(ii) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy; and,

e)    the funding for this purchase BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report. (2024-V08)

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (2.5) Contract Award: Tender No. RFT-2024-094 - Wellington Gateway and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 4 - Harlech Gate to Wellington Commons Entrance

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That items 6 (2.5), 7 (2.6) and 8 (2.7) BE APPROVED

6 (2.5)   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 30, 2024, related to a Contract Award: Tender No. RFT-2024-094 for Wellington Gateway and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 4 from Harlech Gate to Wellington Commons Entrance:

a)    the bid submitted by CH Excavating (2013) at its tendered price of $30,814,695.92 (excluding HST) for the Rapid Transit Implementation – Wellington Road from Harlech Gate to Wellington Commons Entrance project, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by CH Excavating (2013) was the lowest of three (3) 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 said project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $2,482,675 (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 administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project;

e)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to approve Memorandums of Understanding between the Corporation of the City of London and public utilities and private service owners in relation to the cost-sharing of servicing works contained within the Wellington Gateway and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 4 – Harlech Gate to Wellington Commons Entrance contract;

f)    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 (Tender RFT-2024-094); and,

g)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-T04)

7(2.6)   Contract Award: Tender No. RFT-2024-091 - Wellington Gateway and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 3 - Wilkins Street to Harlech Gate

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 30, 2024, related to a Contract Award: Tender No. RFT-2024-091 for Wellington Gateway and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 3 from Wilkins Street to Harlech Gate:

a)    the bid submitted by Bre-Ex Construction Inc. at its tendered price of $25,583,908.64 (excluding HST) for the Rapid Transit Implementation – Wellington Road from Wilkins Street to Harlech Gate project, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by Bre-Ex Construction Inc. was the lowest of five (5) bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)    Archibald, Gray and McKay Engineering Ltd. BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the said project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $2,583,851 (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 administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project;

e)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to approve Memorandums of Understanding between the Corporation of the City of London and public utilities and private service owners in relation to the cost-sharing of servicing works contained within the Wellington Gateway and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 3 – Wilkins Street to Harlech Gate contract;

f)    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 (Tender RFT-2024-091); and,

g)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-T04)

8 (2.7)  Rapid Transit Implementation – Consultant Design Contract Increase RFP20-29 and RFP20-28

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 30, 2024, related to the Rapid Transit Implementation Consultant Design Contract Increase for RFP20-29 and RFP20-28:

a)    the AECOM Canada Ltd. detailed design contract for RFP20-29 - Consulting Services for Rapid Transit and Infrastructure Improvements - Wellington Gateway Project BE INCREASED by $672,000 (excluding HST) to $7,451,736 in accordance with Section 20.3 (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the Dillon Consulting Ltd. detailed design contract for RFP20-28 - Consulting Services for Rapid Transit and Infrastructure Improvements - East London Link Project BE INCREASED by $623,000 (excluding HST) to $7,004,734 in accordance with Section 20.3 (e) of the 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; and,

d)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project. (2024-T04)

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

8.3.11   (4.1) Tree Planting Plan for Harris Park

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication, as appended to the Agenda, from A.M. Valastro, with respect to a Tree Planting Plan for Harris Park:

a)    the above-noted communication and the verbal delegation from A.M. Valastro, with respect to this matter, BE RECEIVED; and,

b)    the above-noted communication BE REFERRED to the future work of the Tree Planting Strategy for consideration as part of that process. (2024-E04)

Motion Failed (6 to 8)

8.4   9th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2024-05-07 SPPC Report 9

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 9th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED with exception of item 8(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   (2.1) 2025 Annual Budget Update Process

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

a)    the report providing an overview of the 2025 Annual Budget Update process BE RECEIVED for information; and

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to make the following amendments to the Council approved 2024 Council and Committee Calendar to accommodate the budget process timelines prescribed by “Strong Mayor” legislation:

i)    reschedule the Budget Committee meetings currently scheduled for November 28th and 29th to November 21st and 22nd to consider Council amendments to the 2025 Budget Update; and

ii)    schedule a Special Council meeting on November 27, 2024 to formally adopt Council amendments to the 2025 Budget Update.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.2) Update on Anti-Hate Pilot Project

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Acting City Manager, the report entitled Update on the Anti-Hate Pilot Project BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.3) 4th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 4th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on April 11, 2024 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (2.4) Request for a Shareholder’s Meeting - London and Middlesex Community Housing

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for London & Middlesex Community Housing:

a)      the 2023 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for London & Middlesex Community Housing BE HELD at a meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on June 18, 2024, for the purpose of receiving the report from the Board of Directors of London & Middlesex Community Housing 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 & Middlesex Community Housing and to invite the Chair of the Board and the Chief Executive Officer of London & Middlesex Community Housing 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 April 18, 2024, from P. Chisholm, Chief Executive Officer, London & Middlesex Community Housing with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (2.5) Confirmation of Appointments to the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Association

Motion made by S. Lewis

That G. Gardner, Director, Gardner Galleries and A. Tsiga, Director, The Fix Inc. BE APPOINTED to the Hamilton Road BIA for the term ending November 14, 2026; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated April 17, 2024 from C. Luistro, Executive Director, Hamilton Road BIA with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (3.1) Ward Boundary Review - Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. Presentation

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a presentation from Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. with respect to the revised ward boundary review, as appended to the added agenda.

Motion Passed

8.4.9   (4.1) Request for Implementation of a Fare Free Day

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the communication dated April 29, 2024 from Councillor S. Franke with respect to Fare Free Day for the general public BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received the following communications with respect to this matter:

  •    D. Stanford and M. Robinson, Co-Chairs, Working Group for Car Free Day 2024;

  •    L. Derikx, Interim Executive Director, London Environmental Network;

  •    M. A. Hodge, Climate Action London;

  •    C. Dyck and the London Greens;

  •    C. Murphy, Board Member of London Cycle Link and London Resident;

  •    A. McClenaghan, Co-Owner, London Bicycle Cafe;

  •    M. Blake Rose;

  •    M. Sheehan;

  •    B. Samuels, Chair, Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee;

  •    S. Sponseller;

  •    E. Blokker;

  •    L. Wall;

  •    AM Valastro;

  •    M. Bloxam; and

  •    Councillor S. Franke.

Motion Passed

8.4.10   (4.2) Consideration of Appointment to the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority Board of Directors

Motion made by S. Lewis

That John Joseph Strybosch BE APPOINTED to the Kettle Creek Conservation Authority for the term ending November 14, 2026.

Motion Passed

8.4.11   (4.3) Resignation from Eldon House

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Eldon House Board of Directors:

a)  the communication dated April 24, 2024 from B. Duncan BE RECEIVED;

b)  the resignation of Bruce Duncan from Eldon House Board of Directors BE ACCEPTED; and

c)  the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to advertise in the usual manner to solicit applications for appointment to Eldon House Board of Directors, with applications to be brought forward to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for consideration.

Motion Passed

8.4.12   (4.4) Request for a Review of the Code of Conduct for Members of Council

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Code of Conduct for Members of Council:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a review of the Code of Conduct for Members of Council and report back to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, including the following components: 

i)    an environmental scan of codes of conduct for elected officials in comparable municipalities, with consideration of specific or general provisions related to “social media”, email, and communications with the public; 

ii)    review of the Ombudsman Ontario “Codes of Conduct, Complaint & Inquiry Protocols and Appointing Integrity Commissioners: Guide for Municipalities” with consideration to limit the Code of Conduct for Members of Council to the four prescribed subject matters required pursuant to Regulation 55/18 of the Municipal Act, 2001; and

iii)    review of the Code of Conduct for Members of Council using the Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression Framework and Equity Tool, as required by the Policy for the Establishment and Maintenance of Council Policies;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consult with the City of London’s Integrity Commissioner regarding the Code of Conduct for Members of Council;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review the Code of Conduct for Community Advisory Committees contained within the General Policy for Community Advisory Committees for general alignment with the principles of the Code of Conduct for Members of Council;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated April 25, 2024 from Councillor S. Stevenson and Deputy Mayor S. Lewis and a communication dated May 6, 2024 from AM Valastro with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.4.8   (5.1) Request for One-Time Funding for Ark Aid

That, the following actions be taken with respect to providing shelter and support to our homeless population:

a)  Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to extend one-time funding in the amount of $687,000 to Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. for an additional 61 days until July 31, 2024 to be funded through the Community Investment Reserve Fund and for staff to engage with Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. to review its most recent communication related to a year round strategy; and

b)  that consideration of the existing Municipal Purchase of Service Agreement with Safe Space London for a total estimated increase of up to $130,000 (excluding HST) for the period of June 1, 2024 to July 31, 2024, to continue temporary day and overnight drop in space to be funded through the Contingency Reserve fund as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 20.3 e) BE REFERRED to the May 28, 2024 meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication from Mayor J. Morgan and Deputy Mayor S. Lewis with respect to this matter;

it being further noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard a verbal delegation from S. Campbell, Executive Director, Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. with respect to this matter.

Motion made by S. Lewis

That part a) of the motion BE APPROVED to read as follows:

a)  Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to extend one-time funding in the amount of $687,000 to Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. for an additional 61 days until July 31, 2024 to be funded through the Community Investment Reserve Fund and for staff to engage with Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. to review its most recent communication related to a year round strategy;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication from Mayor J. Morgan and Deputy Mayor S. Lewis with respect to this matter;

it being further noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard a verbal delegation from S. Campbell, Executive Director, Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That part b) of the motion BE APPROVED to read as follows:

b)   that consideration of the existing Municipal Purchase of Service Agreement with Safe Space London for a total estimated increase of up to $130,000 (excluding HST) for the period of June 1, 2024 to July 31, 2024, to continue temporary day and overnight drop in space to be funded through the Contingency Reserve fund as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 20.3 e) BE REFERRED to the May 28, 2024 meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee;

Motion Failed (7 to 7)

Item 8, clause 5.1 reads as follows:

a)   Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to extend one-time funding in the amount of $687,000 to Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. for an additional 61 days until July 31, 2024 to be funded through the Community Investment Reserve Fund and for staff to engage with Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. to review its most recent communication related to a year round strategy;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication from Mayor J. Morgan and Deputy Mayor S. Lewis with respect to this matter;

it being further noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard a verbal delegation from S. Campbell, Executive Director, Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. with respect to this matter

8.5   7th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2024-04-30 PEC Report

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 7th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of item 11 (3.5)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.1) 6th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 5th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee from its meeting held on April 10, 2024, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.3) Quarterly Heritage Report

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the staff report dated April 30, 2024 entitled “Quarterly Heritage Report - Q1 2024”, relating to the Heritage Permit Application Permits processed under the Delegated Authority By-law for the first quarter of 2024, BE RECEIVED for information.  (2024-R01)

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (2.5) March Building Division Monthly Report

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the Building Division Monthly Report for the month of March 2024 BE RECEIVED for information.  (2024-A23)

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (2.2) 4th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on April 10, 2024:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to develop a more a more permissive set of guidelines for the use of synthetic materials (including composites) in buildings designated under Heritage Conservation Districts to allow greater flexibility in material choices, while also aligning with London’s existing HCD policies to preserve the aesthetic of heritage buildings and report back to a future PEC meeting for public input and Council approval;

b)    the 4th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on April 10, 2024 BE RECEIVED for information

It being noted that this direction is consistent with a recommendation brought forward by the Community Advisory Committee on Planning.

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (2.4) Initial Planning Application Tracking and Digital Planning Application Tracking Update from Planning and Economic Development for submission.

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the staff report dated April 30, 2024, entitled “Initial Planning Application Tracking and Digital Planning Application Tracking Update”, relating to the initial Planning Application Tracking project and Digital Planning Application Tracking program, BE RECEIVED for information.  (2024-D19)

Motion Passed

8.5.7   (3.1) 1560 Dundas Street (Z-9715) (Relates to Bill No. 160)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by London Plaza Inc., relating to the property located at 1560 Dundas Street, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 30, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 14, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Associated Shopping Area Commercial (ASA1/ASA4) Zone TO an Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (ASA1()/ASA3()/ASA4(_)) Zone;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received the project summary from D. Murphy, Urban Planner, Siv-ik Planning and Design, with respect to these matters;

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

  •    D. Murphy, Siv-ik Planning and Design;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including, but not limited to the Urban Corridor Place Type; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates a broader range of uses within existing building stock in the Built Area Boundary;

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

Motion Passed

8.5.8   (3.2) 4023-4500 Meadowbrook Drive and 169-207 Exeter Road (OZ-9706) (Relates to Bills No. 156 and 161)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Bluestone Properties Inc. (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd., relating to the property located at 4023-4500 Meadowbrook Drive and 169-207 Exeter Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 30, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 14, 2024, to amend the Southwest Area Secondary Plan (SWAP), forming part of the Official Plan, by ADDING a site-specific policy to the Transitional Industrial and Medium Density Residential policies in the South Longwoods neighbourhood;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 30, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 14, 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), FROM holding Light Industrial (h-17*LI1/LI2/LI3/LI4/LI7) Zones TO Light Industrial Special Provision (LI1/LI2/LI3/LI4(_)/LI7 Zones;

c)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the recommended amendment is reflective of the proposed development circulated in the Notice of Application and Notice of Public Meeting, existing permissions, and the existing development on site;

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

  •    L. Jamieson, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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;

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to the Key Directions and Transitional Industrial Designation in the Southwest Area Secondary Plan (SWAP); and,

  •    the recommended amendments would facilitate the continued use of the existing building stock with a range of potential uses that are appropriate for the context of the site and surrounding area;

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

Motion Passed

8.5.9   (3.3) 6555 and 6595 Royal Magonlia Avenue (OZ-9702) (Relates to Bills No. 157 and 162)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by W3 Lambeth Farms Inc. (c/o Strik Baldinelli Moniz (SMB) Ltd.), relating to the property located at 6555 and 6595 Royal Magnolia Avenue:

a)    the following actions be taken with respect to the proposed amendments to the Official Plan:

i)    the proposed by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 14, 2024, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Neighbourhoods Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan; and,

ii)    the proposed by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 14, 2024, to amend the Southwest Area Secondary Plan (SWAP), by ADDING a site-specific policy to the Medium Density Residential policies in the North Lambeth Residential Neighbourhood;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 14, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 as amended in parts a) i) and a) ii) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R8 Special Provision/ Convenience Commercial Special Provision/Neighbourhood Facility Special Provision (R8-4(51)/CC6(120)/NF1(17)) Zone TO Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-7(_)*H24) Zone;

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

i)    provide distinction between ground floor commercial and residential uses;

ii)    consider reducing the front yard depth (Royal Magnolia Avenue) to 6.0 metres to continue the established street wall;

iii)    consider incorporating the ramp to the underground parking garage into the design of the building and reducing the amount of the at-grade surface parking provided in favour of more landscaped amenity area; and,

iv)    enhanced tree planting;

d)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the recommended amendment is reflective of the proposed development circulated in the Notice of Application and Notice of Public Meeting, existing permissions, and the existing development on site;

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

  •    N. Dyjach, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.;

it being further noted that the Municipal Council approves this application 

for the following reasons:

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

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

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the Southwest Area Secondary Plan (SWAP), including but not limited to the North Lambeth Residential Neighbourhood policies; and,

  •    the recommended amendment would permit an appropriate form of development at an intensity that can be accommodated on the subject lands and is considered compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood;

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

Motion Passed

8.5.10   (3.4) 1170 Fanshawe Park Road East (Z-9713) (Relates to Bill No. 163)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by 1170 Fanshawe Park Road East Inc. (c/o Brock Development Group Inc.), relating to the property located at 1170 Fanshawe Park Road East:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 30, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 14, 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 Residential R1 (R1-14) Zone TO a Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(_)) Zone;

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

i)    the unit entrances shall be oriented towards Fanshawe Park Road East and/or Stackhouse Avenue;

ii)    consider reducing the amount of surface parking provided in favour of more landscaped amenity area; and,

iii)    enhanced tree planting;

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

  •    M. Doornbosch, Brock Developments;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment would permit an appropriate form of development at an intensity that can be accommodated on the subject lands and is considered compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates an infill development on an underutilized site and provides a range and mix of housing options;

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

8.5.12   (3.6) 2331 Kilally Road and 1588 Clarke Road (39T-20502/OZ-9244) (Relates to Bills No. 158 and 165)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Sifton Properties Limited, relating to the properties located at 2331 Kilally Road and 1588 Clarke Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 30, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 14, 2024 to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 to:

i)    REVISE Map 1 – Place Types – to redesignate a portion of the subject lands FROM a Neighbourhoods Place Type TO a Green Space Place Type.

ii)    REVISE Map 3 – Street Classifications - to ADD Neighbourhood Connector and Civic Boulevard street classifications;

iii)    REVISE Map 5 – Natural Heritage - to AMEND the limits of the Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) boundary;

iv)    ADD a new Specific Policy to the Neighbourhoods Place Type on the westerly portion of the subject lands to permit triplexes, fourplexes, stacked townhouses, low-rise apartments, small-scale community facilities, emergency care establishments, and rooming houses, and to permit a maximum height of six (6) storeys or 20 metres; and,

v)    ADD the westerly portion of the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated April 30, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 14, 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 lands FROM an Urban Reserve (UR4) Zone, an Urban Reserve/Temporary (UR4-T-56) Zone and a Holding Urban Reserve (h-2-UR4) Zone TO a Holding Residential R1 (h-17-h-100-R1-4) Zone; a Holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h-17-h-100-R1-4(21)) Zone; a Holding Residential R1/Residential R3 Special Provision (h-17-h-100-R1-3/R3-1(*)) Zone; a Holding Residential R1/Residential R3 Special Provision/Residential R4 Special Provision (h-17-h-100-R1-1/R3-1()/R4-6(_)) Zone; a Holding Residential R1/Residential R3 Special Provision/Residential R4 Special Provision (h-17-h-100-R1-2/R3-1()/R4-6(_)) Zone; a Holding Residential R3/Residential R4 Special Provision/Residential R5/Residential R6/Residential R7/Residential R8 (h-17-h-100-R3-3/R4-6( _)/R5-7/R6-5/R7-H20-D100/R8-4-H20-D100) Zone; an Open Space (OS1) Zone; and an Open Space (OS4/OS5) Zone; and an amendment to Subsection 4.21 of the Zoning By-law General Provisions to delete the street classification of Kilally Road, 200 metres east of Clarke Road, as a ‘Proposed Arterial’;

c)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public participation meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Residential Subdivision relating to the properties located at located at 2331 Kilally Road and 1588 Clarke Road:

i)    request to add a Neighbourhood Facility Zone to Blocks 22, 23 and 24 along the western extent of the Draft Plan to accommodate a school to meet future needs;

ii)    request to rename the subdivision to include the name Tackabury as there have been seven generations of Tackabury’s living on the land;

iii)    concerns with the second public access to the south of the proposed development as the applicant needs to purchase more than 50% of the existing Upper Thames River Conservation Authority UTRCA) private entrance that currently serves as the UTRCA main access road and the entrance to Fanshawe Conservation Area as this will be required for a municipal right of way;

iv)    the proposed development will impact the UTRCA’s stacking ability for nearly every long weekend of the Fanshawe Conservation Area camping season and every community event held there;

v)    request that feasibility studies and design and engineering alternatives be initiated and not be a financial burden to the UTRCA;

vi)    ensure that the Z-662 for setback requirement for the existing pipeline is followed; 

vii)    ensure that encroachment does not happen on the pipeline easement corridor;

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

i)    a noise impact assessment and appropriate attenuation measures are incorporated into the design of future residential development blocks with exposure to road noise on Clarke Road;

d)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of residential subdivision subject to draft plan conditions recommended by the Approval Authority, submitted by Sifton Properties Limited, prepared by Monteith Brown Planning Consultants (Project No. 12-824 ), certified by Jason Wilband O.L.S., dated February 29, 2024, as red-line amended, which shows a total of thirteen (13) low density residential blocks; eight (8) low-medium density residential street townhouse blocks; three (3) large medium density residential blocks; six (6) park blocks; one (1) future development block; one (1) block for Stormwater Management (SWM) Pond; seven (7) road widening and reserve blocks; served by a neighbourhood connector and several neighbourhood streets (Kilally Road extension and Streets A, B, C, D & E)

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

  •    M. Paluch, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants;

  •    A. Haasen, Sifton Properties Limited;

  •    M. Tackabury;

  •    B. Verscheure, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority; and,

  •    R. Currie, Sun Canadian Pipeline;

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 which promote densities that efficiently use land, resources, and infrastructure, and neighbourhoods that foster social interaction, facilitate active transportation and community connectivity;

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to, the Neighbourhoods Place Type, City Building and Design, Environmental, Our Tools, and all other applicable policies of The London Plan; 

  •    the recommended amendments are appropriate and compatible with existing and future land uses surrounding the subject lands; and,

  •    the recommended zoning will support the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and facilitate an appropriate form, height, and mix of low and medium density residential development in conformity with The London Plan, as amended;

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

8.5.13   (4.1) Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Service Level Review

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Service Level Review:

a)    the Service Level Review Consultant and Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) Senior Staff BE REQUESTED to provide status updates to Civic Administration on a quarterly basis, with the first quarterly update provided three months following the consultant appointment;

b)    the Service Level Review Consultant and UTRCA Senior Staff BE REQUESTED to provide a presentation to Planning and Environment Committee once the project is finalized; and,

c)    the staff report dated April 30, 2024 entitled “Upper Thames River Conservation Authority Service Level Review”  BE RECEIVED for information;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a communication dated April 35, 2024 from T. Annett, General Manager, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, with respect to these matters;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard verbal delegations from the following with respect to these matters:

  •    M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute; and,

  •    T. Annett, General Manager, B. Petrie, Chair, Board of Directors and J. Allain, Manager, Environmental Planning and Regulations, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority;

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-A02)

Motion Passed

8.5.14   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the Planning and Environment Committee Deferred Matters List dated April 22, 2024 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.5.11   (3.5) 379-390 Hewitt Street and 748 King Street (Z-9718) (Relates to Bill No. 164)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of East Village Holdings Limited relating to the property located at 376, 378, 380, 382, 386 & 390 Hewitt Street and 748 King Street:

a)    the proposed by-law attached hereto as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 14, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to extend the Temporary Use (T-79) Zone as it applies to the area of land located at 376, 378, 380, 382, 386 & 390 Hewitt Street and 748 King Street for a period not to exceed one (1) year; and,

b)    pursuant to subsection 34(17) of the Planning Act, no further notice be given;

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

  •    B. Blackwell, Stantec Consulting;

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

  •    the requested amendment for a short term extension would facilitate the long-term redevelopment of the site to a more intense, transit-supportive use that is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the policies of the Old East Village Dundas Street Corridor Secondary Plan and The London Plan; and,

  •    the requested amendment is consistent with the previous direction of Council requiring the applicant to submit building permits for any further parking extension being considered, which was met with the submission of a building permit for a 24-storey mixed use apartment tower on March 22, 2024;

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 made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the motion BE AMENDED to include the following:

It being further noted, that as SPA23-097 for parking lot works has been received by the city, and should the applicant enter into a signed development agreement and demonstrate progress on the parking lot improvements before the expiration of this extension, that council shall consider an additional extension of no less than 2 years.

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the motion, as amended, BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee to consider an amendment to the by-law to read as follows:

the proposed by-law attached hereto as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 14, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to extend the Temporary Use (T-79) Zone as it applies to the area of land located at 376, 378, 380, 382, 386 & 390 Hewitt Street and 748 King Street for a period not to exceed three (3) years;

Motion Failed (4 to 10)

It being noted that Councillor S. Trosow leaves the meeting at 2:57 PM and enters the meeting at 3:08 PM

Item 11, clause 3.5, as amended, reads as follows:

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of East Village Holdings Limited relating to the property located at 376, 378, 380, 382, 386 & 390 Hewitt Street and 748 King Street:

a)    the proposed by-law attached hereto as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 14, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to extend the Temporary Use (T-79) Zone as it applies to the area of land located at 376, 378, 380, 382, 386 & 390 Hewitt Street and 748 King Street for a period not to exceed one (1) year; and,

b)    pursuant to subsection 34(17) of the Planning Act, no further notice be given;

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

  •    B. Blackwell, Stantec Consulting;

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

  •    the requested amendment for a short term extension would facilitate the long-term redevelopment of the site to a more intense, transit-supportive use that is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the policies of the Old East Village Dundas Street Corridor Secondary Plan and The London Plan; and,

  •    the requested amendment is consistent with the previous direction of Council requiring the applicant to submit building permits for any further parking extension being considered, which was met with the submission of a building permit for a 24-storey mixed use apartment tower on March 22, 2024;

It being further noted, that as SPA23-097 for parking lot works has been received by the city, and should the applicant enter into a signed development agreement and demonstrate progress on the parking lot improvements before the expiration of this extension, that council shall consider an additional extension of no less than 2 years.

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)

9.   Added Reports

That the 10th Report of Council in Closed Session BE APPROVED.

Motion made by H. McAlister

That part 1 and 2 of the 10th Report of the Council in Closed Session BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by H. McAlister

That part 3 and 4 of the 10th Report of the Council in Closed Session BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

That clause 1 to 4 of the 10th Report of the Council, In Closed Session, read as follows:

  1.    Partial Property Acquisition – 977 Oxford Street East / 836 Quebec Street – Infrastructure Renewal Program

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 977 Oxford Street East / 836 Quebec Street, further described as  Part of Lots 10, 11 and 12, Plan 423, designated as Part 1, Plan 33R-21334, in the City of London, being part of PIN 08285-0089, containing an area of approximately 0.0566 acres (2,466 square feet), as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of providing sufficient width to accommodate the addition of bike lanes on Quebec Street, and a left turn lane on Oxford Street East, the following actions be taken:

a)    the offer submitted by 2351670 Ontario Inc. (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $128,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”; and

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

  1.    Property Acquisition – 25 Queens Place

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property known as 25 Queens Place, owned by Habitat for Humanity Heartland Ontario Inc., containing an area of approximately 1.84 acres, legally described as Part Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 A & B, Block  I, Plan 296 (3rd); designated as Parts 2, 3, and 4, Plan 33R-20314, in the City of London, County of Middlesex (the “Property”), as shown outlined in Appendix “C” of the staff report, the following actions be taken:

a)     the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”), attached as Appendix “B”, submitted by The Corporation of the City of London (the “Purchaser”) to repurchase the subject property from Habitat for Humanity Heartland Ontario Inc., for the sum of $595,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement; and

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

  1.    Settlement Agreement – 977 – 993 Wellington Road – Wellington Gateway Project

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 977-993 Wellington Road, further described as Part Lot 25, Concession 2, designated as Part 1 on Expropriation Plan ER1545931 and Part 1 on Expropriation Plan ER1545933, in the City of London, being part of PIN 08494-0341/42, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Settlement Agreement from Wellington Plaza Holdings Inc. to settle the outstanding expropriation compensation to the property owner for the total sum of $38,300.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”; and

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

  1.    Property Acquisition – 8 Raywood Avenue – Wellington Gateway Project

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 8 Raywood Avenue, further described as Part of Lots 26 and 27, Plan 467 (4TH), designated as Part 1, Plan 33R-6320, in the City of London, being all of PIN 08358-0100 (LT), containing an area of approximately 6,070 square feet, as shown on the Location Map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the offer submitted by Matthew Leering (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $555,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”; and

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

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

None.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

It being noted that Councillor P. Van Meerbergen leaves the meeting at 3:28 PM

13.   By-laws

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 153 to 165 including Added Bill No.’s 166 and 167, and excluding Bill No. 164, BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 153 to 165 including Added Bill No.’s 166 and 167, and excluding Bill No. 164, BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by H. McAlister

That Third Reading of Bill No.’s 153 to 165 including Added Bill No.’s 166 and 167, and excluding Bill No. 164, BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Trosow

That Introduction and First Reading of Added Bill No.’s 168 and 169, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Second Reading of Added Bill No.’s 168 and 169, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Pribil

That Third Reading of Added Bill No.’s 168 and 169, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 164 BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (11 to 2)

Motion made by J. Pribil

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That Second Reading of Bill No. 164 BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (11 to 2)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That Third Reading of Bill No. 164 BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (11 to 2)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 3:56PM.

Appendix: New Bills

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (2 hours, 49 minutes)

Okay, thank you, please be seated. Okay, welcome to the 10th meeting of City Council, May 14th, 2024. I’m going to start off with the land acknowledgement. We acknowledge that we’re gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabak, Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwak, and Atawandran peoples.

We honor respect the history languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area. The two-row Wampumelt Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Silver Covenant Chain, the Beaver Hunting Ground Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Nanfant Treaty of 1701, the McKee Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, the Huron Track Treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabak and the Dish with One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabak and Haudenosaunee. Pre-Indigenous nations that are neighbors to Lene are the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and Muncie Delaware Nation, who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs.

I also want to acknowledge that the City of Lene is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request, to make a request specific to this meeting. You can contact council agenda at London.ca for 519-661-2489, extension 2425. Next, we have the, what is always a pleasure to have a guest here to sing the National Anthem. Alex Dolphin is a singer-songwriter from London, Ontario with a new sound in the folk and indie community.

He is strongly influenced by classic Canadian artists like Gordon Lightfoot, Dallas Green, and Sam Roberts. He’s integrating himself into London music scene and has been featured as one of the main anthem singers at London Majors Baseball Games and the home opener is this Friday. So if you want to go, you should check it out. Although Alex is not singing this Friday, but he’s going to be regularly featured at the opening of games.

He’ll be showcasing his music through various performances within the community this year as well. So please rise and join me in welcoming Alex who will now sing the National Anthem. ♪ Panda, our home and native land ♪ ♪ True patriot in us coming ♪ ♪ With glowing hearts ♪ ♪ We see the rise ♪ ♪ Our true, nor strong and free ♪ ♪ From far Canada ♪ ♪ We stand on guard for thee ♪ ♪ Our land goes and free ♪ ♪ Stand on, stand guard ♪ Disclosures of beginner interest, any colleagues have anything to disclose. Recognitions, there are none today.

Review of confidential matters to be considered in public. There are none. That brings us to council in closed session of which there are four items. I’ll look for a motion to move into closed session.

I see Councillor Van Merebergen and Councillor Hopkins willing to move in second. Any discussion? I’m moving to closed session. Okay, seeing none, we’ll open up for voting.

Indicating Councillor Troso votes yes. Thank you. Indicating Councillor Van Merebergen votes yes. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 14 to zero. Okay, we’ll move to committee room five colleagues for the public. We’ll be back as soon as we can. (people chattering) Okay, that takes care of the in-camera session.

We’re on to the confirmation of signing of previous minutes. We actually have two sets of minutes that we can approve today. We’ll do them both together. The eighth special meeting held on April 17th and the ninth meeting held on April 23rd.

I’ll look for a mover for both of those. I see Councillor Van Merebergen seconded by Councillor Cady. Any discussion on the minutes? We’ll open that for voting.

Close in the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Okay, communications and petitions. There are three, if you look at the added agenda.

We have a motion to refer all of those to the relevant parts of the agenda. So there’s no objections to doing it that way. Which I see none, we’ll defer a mover to refer those to the relevant parts of the agenda. Councillor Layman seconded by Councillor Hopkins.

Any discussion on that? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Was in the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero.

All right, there are no motions for which you notice was given. So we’re on to reports. The ninth report of the corporate services committee is up first. So I’ll turn it over to Councillor McCallister to present that report.

Thank you through the chair to present the ninth report of the corporate services committee. We have items one through 11. I’ve got no request to pull any of them. Just in terms of order of operations, what we discussed.

There was a referral of consideration of appointments for the London Community Advisory Committees. We did refer that to SPPC. And in terms of the proclamations, there was also a request to get some more information with those proclamation requests. So with that, I’m happy to move items one through 11.

Okay, would anybody like anything dealt with separately? So the Councillor, you’re gonna move the whole batch? Okay. So that’s moved by the chair.

Any discussion on any of the items within the corporate services report? Seeing none, we can open that report for voting. Was in the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero.

That’s right. Thank you. All right, thank you very much. Next is the sixth report of the Community and Protective Services Committee.

Councillor blows his way. So I think believe Councillor Ferrer is presenting the report. Go ahead, Councillor Ferrer. Thank you, Chair.

Happy to report out for the sixth report of the Community and Protective Services Committee. I have one item to be pulled, item number seven by the Deputy Mayor. And with that, I would be free to put items one through six on the floor. Okay, I’ll just look to see if anybody wants anything else that’s dealt with separately before you put that motion on the floor.

I don’t see any, so yes, you can move one through six and you’re willing to do so. Is there discussion or debate on items one through six? I have two Councillors, Councillor Raman and then Councillor Stevenson. Thank you and through you.

I just wanted to follow up on item 2.2, the data regarding impacts of asylum claimants on London’s emergency shelter system. Just wondering if there’s any information that can be shared with members of Council and the public on what has transpired since the CPSC meeting, leading up to now. And I know we were having some discussions at that committee around what our process will be for engaging IRCC and for IHAP funding. And I know that there’s been some work done, so I wanted to give the opportunity for that update.

If I’m going to the City Manager, Mr. Dickens, first, who’s online, I believe. You’re hearing your words. How do you, Mr.

Dickens? Yep, go ahead. So thank you. And so for members of Council, they will have received a briefing note from me about the updates to the asylum claimant process.

We also, as of 1106 this morning, finally received correspondence from the IHAP program administrators indicating that information can be filed in terms of data sets and the impacts and financial impacts of asylum claimants on the emergency shelter system. Those submissions can be made up until May 22nd of this year. So the team has just received all the information. We’ve been received the process by which to submit the information, we will be submitting likely our full financial impact.

However, as per the briefing note to members of Council, I will note that other municipalities that have made a claim have been required to enter into a cost-sharing agreement. So the federal government doesn’t necessarily fund the impact of asylum claimants on the emergency shelter system at 100% impact. For example, Waterloo operates at a 75-25 cost share where the region of Waterloo is picking up 25% of the contribution. So should we be required to enter into a cost-sharing agreement, we will be bringing forward a request of Council to direct us to allocate those funds accordingly.

So the team will start to compile that submission and we will submit it ahead of the May 22nd deadline. Thank you. Councilor Roman. Thank you.

I wanna thank Mr. Dickens and staff for their work on getting this information, not just to council, but to the community. I think it’s really important here for us to note that when this motion was brought forward, it was to make sure that we had a full some understanding of what we’re seeing in our community. And I still think we’re gauging just what the impact is.

And so I wanna thank him and his team for the work they’re doing to ensure that we understand the picture and that we provide the federal government with the most accurate information in order to apply for funding that’s reasonable and makes sense for our community. So thank you for that. Councilor Stevenson. Thank you just to follow up on that same point.

There’s a lot of buzz in the community around this and what happened. And I just wondered if staff could reassure the public with the steps that were taken to seek out this funding. I know it wasn’t successful and I’m glad that we got it now, but I just wondered if we could just know what steps were taken after that was in the direction of council, Mr. Dickens.

Thank you, your worship and through you. The direction from council was to apply to the IHAP program. What we chose to do as civic administration was bring forward the asylum claim and information to council first before we proceeded to submit any cost recovery requests to the federal government. The team did undergo some research to find out who the contact people were and that application process as that information was not readily available.

So we do appreciate the assistance of our local federal MPs and the mayor’s office and others for assisting in making some of those connections for us. We have then underwent a meeting on May 10th with the federal government in which they introduced us to those that oversee the program, explained how the program works and have indicated there’s a strong likelihood that there’ll be the ability to claim back or submit costs from the previous year as well. So the team has embarked on compiling all of that information and again, we will be submitting that ahead of schedule. Councilor Stevens.

Thank you, that’s all. Perfect and I’ll just echo what Mr. Dickens said. Certainly I said a committee that I would make myself available to support our staff, I did have a conversation with MPs and as Mr.

Dickens indicated, we supported the process as best we could based on the committee’s information. I appreciate all of colleagues’ concerns and good to know that we can not only articulate the full costs but actually ensure that we can capture the costs that are in the past as well. So thanks to Mr. Dickens and his team for their work on this as well.

Other speakers to any of the items that the council has put forward on this committee agenda. Okay, seeing none, then we can open those for voting. Thank you for your patience. I just said some technical difficulties.

Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Councilor Ferra. Thank you and I believe the last item was pulled by the deputy mayor, are we to do that at this moment? Yes, so what you can do as the vice chair is put the committee’s recommendation on the floor which contained two pieces.

My understanding is then the deputy mayor would like to amend that to include some of the things that were not successful at committee. So your job is to put the committee’s recommendation on the floor, then I can go to the individual who pulled it in seek direction from them. So if you’re willing to put the committee’s recommendation on the floor, then we can proceed. I’ll put the item number seven on the floor.

Perfect, thank you. The deputy mayor first on the speakers list. Thank you, Your Worship. And I want to say first of all, credit to because he’s presenting the report today.

I’ve kind of agreed to pinch it for Councilor Ferra and put this on the floor since he can’t move it. Well, he’s presenting the report. As you know, community protective services had a couple of members absent. There was some discussion about a couple of parking projects and there were some tie votes.

However, the committee didn’t submit anything that’s to take no further action. It simply received the report. So I’m going to put an amendment on the floor that returns all of those clauses. So I have provided the language to the clerk.

It will create an amendment that will create clauses A, B, C, D, E and F. I’ll just take a moment to address those with colleagues. A, we’ll put the one-hour free on-street parking for the court area in place until the end of 2024. B, addresses the source of financing for that one-hour on-street parking at $300,000 from the Economic Development Reserve Fund.

C, directs the implementation of one-hour free parking pilot project in municipal lots one and two in the old East Village until the end of 2024. D indicates that the source of financing for that would be $30,000 from the Economic Development Reserve Fund. E would be the receiving of the staff report. And F would include civic administration being directed to look further into the issues contained within the communication from arcade that was distributed to members of council.

Yeah, so I’m fine to second that to get it on the floor and going. So that amendment has moved and seconded. It’ll come up in the system so you can see just a little bit of a reordering, adding back into the pieces, and then we can start the debate. And I don’t know if you want to start off with rationale now, but— Yeah, so I’ll jump right into the rationale.

First of all, I think we’ve heard very clearly from both BIA’s downtown and old East Village that a little bit more runway on the core parking program would be very valuable. We’ve also heard from the OAV BIA in particular, the Councilor, the social service agencies as well, that the parking lot pilot project would be of benefit as well. I am not one to say we are going to continue subsidizing these parking rates forever. I’ve had discussions with businesses as well and said at some point we have to move away from this and look for another way to do this program.

But I think there’s value right now in continuing to provide them with some support. It’s not the two hours core that we provided before. This will be one hour during the week, but it does support people being able to pop in and out of businesses in the downtown, make their purchase, or in the OAV, make their purchase, maybe grab a coffee, get back in their car and be on their way. It continues that revitalization post-COVID of the need to get people into our core area again and supporting those local businesses.

I do and I will myself continue to have discussions with business owners about how we move this forward in a way that it’s not always coming from municipal funds. But I think that stepping back, and this is a step back for me, it was two hours, now we’re going to one, but it provides a little more runway. And if we go to the end of 2024, it gets them through both the busy summer festival season, as well as the Christmas holiday market season, which are probably the two biggest times for businesses to take advantage and to rebuild that customer loyalty to come back and be patrons of those businesses. I do think it’s important, and of course we’ll be talking about the arcade funding situation later in the meeting, but the communication we receive from our gate and having been at the site and heard from Ms.

Campbell about the challenges with their volunteers and the parking tags that get stuck in windows and then get driven away and then the parking tags not available until the volunteer comes back a week later. That is a problem that we need to solve for them. I don’t think that it’s a solution that we need to work out on the council floor. I think that’s a discussion to have with our staff, with our gate about how we better accommodate their volunteers while they’re helping on the housing and homelessness crisis.

But I want to include that in there, having now been on site and seen what the physical problem is with the accommodation we’ve provided them. I think there’s perhaps a better way to do that through the honk app or something to that effect. So it’s an important opportunity to include this in the parking pilot projects. Again, this isn’t a forever, but it is a for now and I encourage colleagues to support it so that our businesses are able to take full advantage of the summer festival season and the Christmas holiday season this year.

Okay, so if colleagues refresh the screen, you’ll see that there was an A and a B coming from committee and this is now an amendment to add a C, D, E and F as was just described. I’ll look for other speakers on the speakers list. Councillor Ferriero. Thank you, Your Worship.

Yeah, the deputy mayor explained it pretty well. What I would add to that is, I see this as a small move with some big impact for the mom and pop shops in the core area. So what we’ve seen just in the meantime, where we haven’t had the parking, we have had some feedback already from local businesses speaking to just some of the concerns that they might see with respect to accessibility to their location. So I do believe that this does provide that extra runway and I do see this as also tied into downtown revitalization just to make sure that we can have that competitive advantage for the local businesses vis-a-vis looking at the rest of the city.

So I do hope that we can get some support here and just looking forward, this does bring us to the end of 2024. I do think that there should be some point and I will be speaking with staff online too on how we can plug this into some future possibilities and that’s not necessarily extending parking. I would just like to see some type of planner development that would just kind of encompass the whole thing and just so we can make sure that we don’t have to be revisiting this again in the future. Councillor ramen.

Thank you and through you. When can I clarify the motion, please? What the deputy mayor read and what’s on the screen for me is a little bit different. I just want to check in if there is a piece that mentions city staff working with arcade in order to come up with a strategy around parking.

I thought that that was the supplemental part, the only part I was willing to support. So just for Councillor, it’s both. So this is the amendment added in. The part that you’re looking for is actually a committee recommendation that came forward as B.

So it’s not part of the vote on the amendment yet, but when we go back to the main motion, it’s sitting there as the current B. Okay, thank you. It just reordered for me. So that’s great.

As I said, that’s the part that I’m willing to support. I wanted to talk a little bit about this, what’s in front of us. But first I had a question for administration around how much money is in the economic development reserve fund? Through the chair, I don’t have that right in front of me, but I can look that up and get back to you in a moment.

Do you want to proceed? Well, that gets looked up. Sure, and I guess just a follow up for that as well is just how much of that was earmarked. My understanding was that we earmarked a number of funds within that, or earmarked funds within that account, specifically through a business case during the budget.

And I just want to know whether or not that is drawing down on another area that we did agree to fund. And therefore, could be perhaps taking away some funds for a vital economic development plan that we had. What we’re also looking at. So I just wanted to get some clarification on that before I proceed in this discussion.

Sure, we’ll just give our staff a second to look up those answers. Okay, go ahead. Thank you through the chair. The balance in the economic development reserve fund that’s uncommitted is approximately $4.2 million.

Thank you, appreciate that. So I’m glad to hear that there’s sufficient funding for this in there. However, do you have some concerns with drawing down from this amount? And although I see that we have the funds available, I’m not sure that for me, this particular method of allowing for parking meets the particular needs of those that are looking to be downtown.

So I do think that we had a program in place that made more sense in my opinion for the users that were seeking to use the honk app and be in the down to, in the core. I do think right now what we have with one hour and on street isn’t sufficient enough for what people may be looking for. I understand the value of both of having the one hour because people wanna pop in. But at the same time, I’m not sure that that doesn’t run counter in a way to what I personally am interested in incentivizing in the core as well.

So that’s where I am with that. And I am supportive of being of administration working with arcade to find a solution, but I do not think that that solution is just one hour parking being in municipal lots one and two. Again, just going back to some of the concerns that were shared, they seem to be more than just the cost of one hour parking. There seems to be some issues with overlap in terms of schedules and when they would be using that lot.

So I don’t personally, I appreciate that we’re having this discussion. I just, I’m not sure that these are the programs that will help to address some of those needs that we’re hearing from residents. I think Councillor others, I have Councillor McAlister and then Councillor Stevenson, I’ll look for, I think Councillor Prabble. Thank you and through the chair.

As the Deputy Mayor, I think eloquently put, I do think that we need some more runway. I’m willing to support this relief. We have projects both in Argyll and Hamilton Road, which we have funded, which are on a temporary basis. I think that it’s just a reality in terms of the business districts that we represent.

We don’t have necessarily large commercial lots. Some of our businesses do, but we don’t, by and large, have that everywhere. We do have on street parking and this does provide them the opportunity to pop in and out. I think it’s still important that we support the core, OEV, they’re all experiencing issues that we’re trying to deal with, but we do need that extra runway and relief in the short term.

And that’s why I’m willing to support this. Thank you. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you.

I hear my colleagues and I appreciate the staff recommendation, but I wish we were in a space of revitalization in all these village. I wish it was about bringing people back in a space of recovery, but we are not there. So I guess I haven’t asked staff this ahead of time, so I apologize for the on the floor question, but is there some requirement for a minimum standards to be upheld in a municipal lot? I mean, we are charging 275 an hour in a municipal lot that is full of tents, garbage, open drug use.

Social disorder of all forms. So is there a certain requirement in terms of standards? I look to Mr. Catolicon standards in municipal lots.

Hold on, point of order. Go ahead, Councillor Rossell, you have to rise, please. Is that within the scope of the amendment that’s on the floor? Yes, so I will make a ruling on this ‘cause I’m allowing the question.

This involves a funding program for municipal lots one and two. I think a question about the standards on the upkeep of those lots within one and two is within the scope of making a decision on the funding program. I would say, I think there’s a lot of space that this could go down that I would not deem to be germane to the discussion, but the current question I think is fine to for the council to determine whether or not she would be supportive or not of the one hour parking program in the area. So I’m gonna allow this, but I will say clearly, I’m not gonna let this stray outside of this, but this question I see is within the scope of the amendment, so I appreciate the point of order, but I’m gonna allow the question.

Yes, Your Worship, we have municipal standards in terms of winter maintenance and summer maintenance. The fees for parking are set by municipal council in the fees and charges by-law. Councillor Stevenson. Yes, thank you.

So as a follow up though, in a situation where parking spaces aren’t available due to encampments, and there is public safety concerns, what is the, it just feels as though there isn’t a willing, there isn’t, we’re not addressing the concern here. I would be so supportive of this one hour free to incentivize people to come and shop and eat in an amazing district and in our core area. And we have a strategic plan that talks about the vibrant, safe downtown core area. The old East Village Midtown is part of that core area.

We have a commitment to a safe city for women and girls. Maybe I get to bring it up at another committee meeting. I do have an amendment here that I, I’m not sure where it belongs. And it’s a request for staff to come forward with recommendations to address the public safety concerns and the municipal lots, particularly in the lot behind arcade, to look at things like funding the wall that will protect the residential homes and the family homes on Queens have that back onto there.

In the meantime, until we can get things figured out. But a wall there, possibly more garbage pickup, possibly some security. If I were to put an amendment forward, I’m looking for guidance as to whether this might be the place or whether it might be better with the arcade mission funding. So I’m only going by what you described as the amendment.

To me, that sounds like a letter to the committee with colleagues on the committee providing the direction to staff to do that. It sounded to me like you’ve got a couple of things packaged together that are all related. I would suggest not at council, but at a committee where colleagues can see what you’re proposing, come prepared for some questions, adding to it some direction to staff on that would be the best spot. So the next community and protective services committee is probably the best spot for something that is of the scope that you’re describing right there.

Okay, thank you. I will follow that advice. I am wondering what department at the city is responsible for that economic development property standards in our downtown core area. I know we don’t have the core area action plan anymore, but do we have a department at City Hall that is tackling these issues that we have there?

Councilor, can you, so this is an amendment to the motion. I just need you to link your question back to the amendment that’s considered. I’m not saying that that’s not a good question to ask, but I need it to be linked the matter that’s before us on the floor. So could you just provide some linkage for me there?

So I guess what I’m looking for is I fully support this amendment and I would love to have something in there that also commits to a well-run city property standards in these lots, is that? I would suggest, Councilor, that that’s probably also something that you could add into that other amendment ‘cause it sounds to me like you’re not just interested in these two lots, but there might be other locations if you’re talking about Mr. Couture, like articulated the current standards that we use, which are related to the things he mentioned. If you’re looking to up kind of the standards generally, that’s also probably something that you’ll take to a committee discussion and then, you know, whether it’s these two lots or others that could be had there.

So I know I might put, you know, an awkward spot for supporting this motion, but I would say it’s probably not the right thing to try to attach that here, given, you know, the scope of it that it might apply to wider across the city ‘cause we’re really just talking about what is a pilot program on these two lots, which is a very, you know, specific funding program for allowing the parking and that’s what came through committee, didn’t make it through committee, it’s up here. So that wider discussion is probably better for that other letter that you’re contemplating writing. Okay, thank you, that’s what I’ll do then. So I would ask for council support for this amendment, our core area businesses and the people who love them and want to support them and want them to see them survive, would really appreciate the one hour incentive.

I know it’s a small amount of money and people still have to pull out their honk app, but it is, it’s funny the difference that that makes two people to be able to be willing to commit to come to an area that for many, they feel their personal, they are at risk and their vehicle is at risk in the time that they are choosing to support our core area businesses. So I’m looking for council support on this. I’m grateful to staff for bringing this forward so quickly. And I will definitely be bringing forward whatever it is that I can do to help us at least get really clear on what it is that we are our standards for our municipal lots when we are committed to a core area, to a safe downtown, to supporting incredible small businesses, arts and culture.

We’ve got, we’re a city of music. And it would be really great to have parking lots that align with the standard of the UNESCO city of music. Okay, thank you. I have councilor Pribble next.

Thank you. I will support all of them as I did during the committee meeting if we are on a decreasing this benefit. So we are in my opinion in terms of cost saving money, beyond the right track, and I had various conversations with numerous business owners, with both BIA and a social agency, and they all see the value in one hour. So the value is seen there for the people that, for the customers, customer base, that these organizations businesses are serving.

So I think it’s a win-win, and I hope we all support it till the end of the year. And by the end of the year, we will come with certain different strategies to make our downtown St. Corr more more well-coming, more inviteable. So hopefully we will not be able to use these additional parks.

But for now, I really think it’s a way to go. And the community, they do see the value in the one hour. Thank you. Thank you, other speakers to this matter who haven’t spoke yet.

This is on the amendment, by the way. Okay, seeing none. So this is on the amendment, which is adding the pieces that were suggested, C, D, E, and F to the committee recommendation. So we’ll open that amendment for voting.

If colleagues have an error, just give us one. If colleagues have a screen that’s frozen, hit control F5, and then voting in progress. Yeah, did you control? We get there’s going.

Has anybody have any trouble having that reset? It was in the vote motion carries 11 to three. So that was the amendment. I look for a mover of the as amended now motion.

You can move it, yes. So as amended, Councillor Ferra and seconded by Councillor Maymere-Bergern. Yes, okay. Okay, so now on the as amended motion, which is the committee’s parts, plus the parts we just added to it, I’ll see if there’s any speakers.

Councillor Trossau, go ahead. Would it be possible to just pull out A and B and vote for that? Yeah, I think let’s have the debate on the as amended motion just for efficiency. At the end, if you want to pull out the actual final vote on A and B and then the other components that we added in, we can do that at the end.

But let’s just for efficiency, let’s have the discussion on the whole piece and then we can just do the vote separate at the end, yes. As long as I’m standing, I’ll just say that my position on this is not changed. I believe I’ve been very consistent all along that I do not doubt that there’s a desire to have the parking services. I think the issue is how it should be funded and how long that lasts.

Because my worry here is, which is going to keep extending, there’s a reasonable possibility. Once we get into having people expect this from their hunt gap, it’s going to be very difficult to change it. And this will just be one of a series of extensions. And I hear some of my colleagues saying, “This is the last time I’m going to support this.” And I really mean it.

And I’m taking people to be in good faith when they say that, but I’m just going to be not supporting other than A and B, I’m not going to be supporting the rest of this motion. Thank you. Okay, anybody else on the as amended motion? I had Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. As I said, I wish we were in a space of just looking to give our businesses a little extra perk to keep them going during a really challenging time. I mean, if you listen and read about businesses across this country, small businesses particularly, they are really, really struggling. They employ people, they serve our community.

They are what makes London great. They are part of what makes London great. A great city has a great core area. It’s a destination.

And I will say that as a city councillor, I am not proud of our core area right now. It breaks my heart to hear residents talk about how embarrassing it is for them to bring family and friends here. They can’t believe what has happened to our city. So in terms of supporting parking, you know, you can have all different reasons for not supporting parking.

You’d prefer people take transit. You’d prefer them ride a bus. You don’t wanna fund it for municipal sources. Well, we are not gonna have businesses downtown very much longer if we don’t show them some love and support.

And I think 330,000 is not a lot of money. It would go a long way in terms of letting Londoners and the London area businesses know that we support them, that we see their plight and that we are committed to taking action. So I look forward to my council colleagues supporting this. Thank you.

Other speakers on the has amended motion. Councillor Pribble. I’m just gonna add to the door talk in terms of pandemic and the businesses challenges. But again, if you look at, please do look at the other things as well in terms of the construction, in terms of the BRT that we are implementing.

And these are the areas that are really truly affected and they will be affected within this time. I certainly am not gonna say that this will be the, and I never said this would be, by the way, the last time I would support it, we gotta do what we gotta do. And this time, I will certainly support it because the core era needs it and the value is perceived as positive by the Londoners, by the agencies and by the businesses. Thank you, Councillor Ferra.

Thank you, Chair. Thanks for recognizing me. So I see this motion as one of Council’s steps for supporting businesses downtown. And all the moves that we’re making, we are trying to focus on bringing people down here.

And I think one of the big ways that we can support it also is the way we speak about the core area. And if we were to look at the core area today and compare it how the core area looked two years ago, it is much, much better than what it is. And one of the big areas of support we can give to the downtown is really speaking about the truth of how it looks now and how we’re on a good trajectory going to up, going better. Point of personal privilege.

Go ahead, microphone off. I just asked my fellow Councillor to recognize there’s three distinct portions of the core area and not all of them are doing well or are better. My area is much worse. Okay, so on the point of personal privilege, I think you can recognize that there are different parts of the core, I’m not sure that it crossed the line of privilege or uncomfort.

So you’ve made your point. Councillor can continue with his points. I’m not really sure that met the threshold of an actual point of personal privilege given the way that we operate them, but your point’s been made. Go ahead, Councillor Ferra.

Thank you, Chair. So I’m just trying to distinguish that. There has been a big change downtown and we are going to get better. But we’ve already seen some significant improvement in the time being that we’ve been sitting on this council.

So everything, really what I’m trying to say is everything is tied into that revitalization component. Everything is tied into bringing people downtown. And I think we should start really kind of bringing out that message on top of this parking motion that we’re working on of how the downtown is somewhere where people can visit and it is somewhere where it is better and it is improving. So I am trying to put the message out to the rest of the city, come downtown and check it out for yourselves.

Thanks. Okay, anybody else in the as amended motion? Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you.

So first, colleagues, I want to say thank you for the support on the amendment. And I do encourage colleagues to support the as amended motion. And I’m going to take this opportunity. I wasn’t, what I’m going to take this opportunity to build on what Councillor Ferra just said.

Couple of weeks ago, Councillor Lehman and I, we’re walking around Victoria Park. Yes, believe it or not, we do participate in active transportation sometimes. It’s not all about parking our cars. We do walk and get around the downtown when we happen to be in the area.

I know that’ll make Councillor Frank very happy. But we noticed that when you’re walking around, the eye test along Richmond Road is that things are getting better. Last weekend, Dundas Place was alive with thousands of people, many of whom are my fellow comic book nerds for free comic book day. It was wonderful to see that.

There are good things going on. And if you look, and I see that Mr. Wallace has joined us in the gallery, there are cranes in the sky, hundreds of millions of dollars. Like this to the motion for me, please.

Yeah, hundreds of millions of dollars of investment are coming into our downtown core by the private sector. But to the point of the small businesses, the mom and pops, the Uber Cool Store heroes, attic books, places like that, these one-hour pop-in parking opportunities matter. So I have no, and I would not quibble with what Councillor Stevenson said. There’s a section of Old East Village that is really, really, really struggling still, absolutely.

And there are some great businesses there too that deserve support and customer business as well. And again, that opportunity to have an hour where you can pop in, make purchase, grab coffee, be on your way, that matters. That’s the lifeblood of small businesses. It’s not the people who are going to come and spend six hours on the patio, it’s the people who are going to come in once a week and grab a coffee and maybe make another small purchase along the way.

So I think that this is an important step, but I do want to say to Councillor Truss’ point, I do want to see a change in how we approach this. I’ve communicated that to the BIA’s. And so for me, that’s why the end of 2024 is where I can get to. And I will continue to have discussions with Mr.

Morrison, with Ms. Malay, with others involved on how businesses can be partners in this too. We just saw on another item where we had a corporate sponsor step up for a car-free transit day. Fantastic.

And I know that we may not have somebody who can pop up and come up with $300,000 for another parking extension, but I think we need to look at those unique partnership opportunities moving forward. It cannot just always be taken from the public purse. But for now, I hope that we will give this runway, this extension to these smaller businesses who really need it, to get through how a successful summer, how a successful Christmas season, and 2025 sounds crazy to be talking about 2025 right now, but it is on the horizon. And those long-term plans, we have to start thinking about what that looks like then.

But for now, let’s give ourselves the runway to get those plans off the ground. Okay, that exhaust. Go ahead, Councillor McAlister. Thank you and through the chair.

Just echoing in terms of what Councillor Ferra, the Deputy Mayor said, my BIA borders both of these BIA’s. And so I’m not immune to the issues that I’ve been brought up. I view this as an incentive to support our local businesses. I think it’s vitally important.

And I encourage Londoners to go to our various business districts. It’s not just inner city. We have vibrant commercial districts on the outside, the Hyde Park BIA. We’re all in this together.

And I really wanna switch the narrative from this just tragedy focus to triumphs. We have had triumphs as a city, as our businesses. We’re doing what we can. This is one component to collective action, which I think will make an impact on our city.

I’m happy to support it. And I hope my colleagues will as well. Thank you. Okay.

That exhaust speakers is now that I have on the as amended motion. Now how we’re gonna divide this, colleagues is, we’re gonna do A, B and the it being noted, which is essentially that there are communications associated with this and then we’ll do the balance of the motion after that. So the first thing we’ll do is the A and the B and the it being noted piece. I’m gonna use the same mover and seconder for the as amended motion, both parts.

So, and now the debate is over. We’re just gonna vote on one. And then we’re gonna vote on the other. Okay.

Everybody’s good with that. Okay. So we’re gonna open AB and the it being noted for approval first. Councillor Van Merebergen.

Oh, yes. Thank you noted closing the vote. Motion carries 14-0. And we’ll get the next piece up, which is the balance of the motion.

Same mover and seconder. We’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 11-3.

I think that exhausts the committee’s report as amended motion is done. Okay. Thank you very much for presenting Councillor Ferreira. We’ll move on to the next committee report, which is the seventh report of the civic works committee.

I’ll have Councillor Hopkins present the report for that committee. Thank you. Your worship, I’d like to put the seventh report of the civic works committee on the floor. I have been asked to pull number 11, which is 4.1.

Would anybody like anything else, both Councillor Van Merebergen. Thank you Mayor. I’d like to hold the vote against 2.5, 2.6, 2.7. The supply and delivery of traffic paint, I can get behind that one, no problem.

But 6, 7, and 8 on the council agenda. Okay. And if you could call them maybe together to save time, that would be. I’ll do that.

And you’ll have a chance to debate the supply and delivery of paint when that comes up if you’d like. But we will pull 6, 7, and 8 for you. And I’ll keep them together. I will just do them all together unless anybody has an objection to that.

I don’t see any. Okay. So anything else that anyone would like separate? Okay.

I’ll look to Councillor Hopkins to craft emotion based on all that feedback. So I’d like to put 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 10 on the floor. Okay. That’s on the floor.

Go ahead. And I’d just like to say that the committee received the fifth reports from the inter-graded transportation and environmental stewardship advisory committees. We approved a number of contract awards for Colonel Talbot in the Wellington Gate, Phase 3 and 4. Some highlights have also, are the single source negotiated price for an inter-green tractor mower.

And we also received a delegation request for tree planting in Harris Park. Okay. So perfect. Now, not all of that’s on the floor now.

What we have just for colleagues is 1 through 5, 9 and 10. And so now I’ll look for a debate from anybody on those items. Okay. That’s moved by the chair.

We’ll open that for voting. Councillor Trossall. Noting a yes vote, closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero.

Councillor Hopkins, maybe you can do Councillor Van Mirbergen’s items next. I’d like to put 6, 7 and 8 on the floor. Okay. The chair puts those on the floor.

Any discussion on those? I don’t see any discussion. I’m just waiting for a second to get that up. So that’s going to open for voting now on items 6, 7 and 8.

If your microphone, Councillor Hopkins. So is voting yes. Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to 2.

Councillor Hopkins. I’d like to now put number 11 on the floor. Okay, chair puts number 11 on the floor. Is there any discussion on number 11?

Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, worship. I’ll be re-fist to have this poll ‘cause I’ll be voting no. I don’t support asking our staff to revisit plans on a park’s design or tree planting based on one member of the public who’s not a certified arborist providing comment at a meeting.

So that’s what I’ll be voting no. Okay. Any other discussion on this? Dean Nunn, okay.

Then we’ll open this for voting. Do you want to just vote manually? Councillor Troso. Councillor Troso voting yes.

Closing the vote. Motion fails six to eight. Councillor Hopkins. And that is my report.

We’re on to the ninth report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee meeting. Go to Deputy Mayor Lewis to present that particular report. Thank you, your worship and through you. I am prepared to put most of the report on the floor.

I have been asked to poll item eight. That is the request for one-time funding for ARK aid. I’ve not been made aware of any other items that Council wishes to deal with separately. Okay, would anybody like anything else on that SPPC agenda dealt with separately aside from number eight?

It’s seeing none then. Then I am prepared to move one through seven inclusive and nine through 12 inclusive. So that’s on the floor moved by the chair. Any discussion on all of those items?

Okay, seeing none, we’ll open those for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. And your worship all now put item eight.

The request for one-time funding for ARK aid on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor moved by the chair. I’ll look for any discussion on this. Sorry, your worship, I should have indicated as well that there is a request on hate for parts A and B to be dealt with or voted on separately as well.

Okay, if there was a request to vote on them separately, perhaps you can, what motion are you making then? So why don’t I put item eight A on the floor first just for clarity? And that is simply the one-time funding for ARK aid street mission. Okay, so for those, people have given them time to kind of flip to the committee reports so they can see the pieces.

Thank you for articulating that. Think that item has an A, a B, and a couple of it being noted clauses. So do you wanna put the it being noted clauses with A or B? Considering that they both pertain to A, let’s put the it being noted.

So we’ll put eight A and both it being noted on the floor now. So we’ll do that, it’ll be up in a second, moved by the chair. So all we’re dealing with on this item is the A part and then the it being noted, which is the extension of one-time funding to ARK aid and the two it being noted related to a communication and a delegation. Any discussion on that?

Okay, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I will be supporting this as I did at committee and I’m glad that this came forward, that there will be a continuation of services for people who desperately need it and it is in Old East Village on the main street of the BIA in an area that there’s already an oversaturation of services. And I just want to be really clear on that, that I’m the one that moved the motion originally to have the homeless cold weather beds, that all of them be funded, all 120.

I was the one that moved that. And here I am again supporting it in my ward, despite the pleas of the residents and the business around at the chaos that comes along with that. So I hear my fellow Councillor saying downtown is better. The eyeball test says that the core is better.

The core didn’t get cold weather beds this winter. All of them are around within a radius of Old East Village. So I just want to be really clear. People say, oh, she doesn’t support homeless funding.

I’m the one that moved the motion for all 120 beds. Arcade came through and delivered. And it’s been up to City Council to move an extension for 61 days so that people have some place to go, so that the employees that have been trained have some place to work and that the volunteers can continue doing what they’re doing. And as Sarah from the arcade said, and I agree, we need a plan.

There needs to be a plan that’s going to come forward that is going to deal with the issues, deal with the people in a way that supports this whole of community response that looks after the trained employees, make sure that we don’t lose them, that they are kept to work in our community. And so I just really need to reiterate that, that I’m the one that did the 120 beds that put it forward. It was successful, thanks to arcade. I am supporting it as the word Councillor, even though the eyeball test.

There’s a point of order by Councillor McAllister. Point of order. Yeah, send up please. I take issue with a Councillor taking credit for a decision of Council as a whole.

I’m fine to clarify. So I will, I’ll deal with the point of, so it’s a point of privilege, not order. I will say, I don’t think the Councillor said it wasn’t a decision of Council, she may not have clarified that part. I think the Councillor was referring to a specific motion that she brought forward and her support for this particular motion.

I would presume that no member of Council would not recognize the work and that any motion comes forward requires a majority support. And so I think we can all recognize that. I understand where your concern is, but I’ve not heard anything that is inaccurate and I’m just making very clear that, of course, these are decisions of majority of Council. And yeah, so I’m gonna say that your point of personal privilege is dealt with and the Council can continue on.

I would just like to say to the Mayor word of caution, I think this us versus them language needs to be called out and addressed as it comes up. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson.

I’m not sure what that meant, but maybe we can talk about it offline. What I’m trying to say is, as the Ward 4 City Councillor, there are a lot of people who are gonna be very unhappy with me for supporting this and that we’re unhappy with me supporting the cold weather beds. So I will be doing whatever I can and bringing forward motions to address the safety concerns that were brought up by Arcade when they were here, that the vast number of people who need services creates a lack of safety for both the neighbors and the unhoused in that parking lot. So I’ll be looking for Council support there and I’m also looking for Council support in recognizing that their fellow Councillor has supported services, has supported services to the detriment of her ward.

And so I just wanted to put that on the record. I do wanna thank Arcade for the push for Council and for the Mayor and Deputy Mayor for bringing this motion forward. And I look forward to hearing what’s next very, very soon because there’s a lot of desperation out there. Thank you.

Other speakers to this? Go ahead, Councillor Pribble. Thank you and I’m gonna start spring of last year and I’m gonna come to this. I’m supportive of this as I was at the meeting, but I just wanna kind of go us a little bit back and kind of how we got where we are.

In March, end of March, when our last winter program finished, it was middle of April roughly that we were together and we were looking at next steps. When end of March, the funding finished agencies, they let some places go, they let their staff go, and two weeks later, we were deciding what then. Then it came to summer, visit the hubs. We were presented, visit the hubs, we were told, we got the best in front of us.

I made a comment, I know if it’s the best, it’s the only one I got here in front of me. So we approved it, we went forward and then we were asking questions about the following winter encampments. Sorry, sorry, winter response. The answer we received was hopefully we will not need one because we’ll have something better in place.

Then it came to November, December, but we were again behind the eight ball and we were trying to scramble what are we gonna address. Thank you very much, Arcade, that you came forward and I do believe that their initiative last winter was the game changer because the core and especially the downtown has been better than ever before, or sorry, not that ever before, than during the last some years. So thank you, Arcade, for that. I really do believe that if I look at the plans we have currently to strategic tables, we talk about all these village.

One of the tables that was totally no report and no involvement was the business table. And this is the table that should be speaking on behalf of all these village businesses. And I really think that there’s a, some we need to improve the communications, the actions, the effectiveness, council, staff, and the strategic tables because just what I said in the last two minutes, what I told you in terms of the deadlines, we are not proactive, we are reactive, which is for strategic planning, it’s not strong and it’s cost us much more money than ever before. So thank you very much, Arcade, for winter.

Thank you very much for coming forward and with this plan saving us 25% of taxpayers’ money and I will certainly support it. Thank you. Any other speakers on this part? Seeing none, we’re gonna open A and the A, B, noted for voting.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Deputy Mayor. Your worship part B, I did not support it committee. I won’t be supporting it today, so I’m gonna need another member of council to put part B on the floor.

Member of council is willing to put that on the floor for council for air, you’re willing to do it? Okay, so you can rise and take over presentation of this. So you’ll put SBPC 5.1B on the floor and that is the part related to safe space and a referral to a future meeting of committees. This is a motion for a referral of a motion.

So that you’re willing to present that? Okay, so that’s a committee report, so it just needs the presenter. I’ll look for speakers on this now. Seeing none, council Stevenson, go ahead.

Thank you, I’m gonna ask my colleagues not to support this referral. We’ve got an agency there that we funded on a temporary basis. So there’s been some talk about it being precarious funding, but it was not precarious, it was temporary. A temporary winter response from last year and in fact, there was a commitment made to me and to the residents of Ward 4 that it would be temporary.

It’s been much longer than that date and there’s no longer the winter issues. We just closed a 15 resting space location for London Cares with no staff report, no decision of council, it was just done. When I brought forward a motion asking for the rationale behind that, because there was a lot of concern in the area about what people were gonna do without that access to the 24/7 15 bed resting space. Council said that they didn’t need that explanation.

So to say that this 15 spaces that is not 24/7, that’s in a location that is not appropriate, and that was done just as an emergency measure. I don’t think that there can be the pleas of things are gonna fall apart because of this staff did not recommend an extension for this funding. The whole of community response did not bring forward a recommendation. No one has said that this is a critical piece of the plan going forward.

This is again, it’s up to council now who supports them bringing forward a motion to come alongside with our gate. We’ve not had a presentation. Their board and agency did not, was not proactive in coming forward. So to do a referral to May 28th, really doesn’t make any sense to me.

It doesn’t seem like good governance to think that three days before the funding ends, just doesn’t give an agency time to wind down. And that’s what needs to happen. It was temporary funding. It was a temporary response.

We closed lending cares, those 15 resting spaces. It’s not been recommended. I’m asking as the ward councilor that that commitment to it being temporary be honored and that we allowed this agency to find another location, find another funding source and that there’s an appreciation that all these village and the Ward 4 Councilor is supporting the arcade funding. And to please not add to the oversaturation issues that we already have, to find another way, if this is what some councilors want, to find another way to do it, that isn’t going to go against the commitment that I had and that honors the situation that we have there.

The issues that we have directly related to that. And the issues that we have in general with that agency. So I’m asking colleagues not to support the referral, not to drag this on. It’s going to look really bad May 28th.

Then there’s going to be all the rationale for how can we cut it off three days later. We’re going to inevitably be extending it just through having dragged it on to within three days of the funding end date. So I think it’s fair to the community, to the women that it serves, to the people who work there and to the agency itself to make a decision today, so that people know what is going on, rather than drag it on. Okay, other speakers to this pro-emotion.

Oh, sorry, I did have accounts approval. That’s okay, thank you. I do believe this agency brings certain value to our community, and not just to the specific clientele that was always designated during our past conversations. Since last week, I’ve been every day to this area.

Couple of times, even twice a day, I talked to many people on the street and also the residents, the residents. And I was actually, I gotta tell you, I was very surprised how many residents actually they were aware of this, and even our original temporary solution for this agency. And there are two waiting for us to make a decision because they’re saying kind of what actually and other councils stated here in terms of keep extending for parking lots that they will keep extending it. This is what the residents were asking also there.

Are we planning to do it, or are we gonna make it permanent or what is our plan? Based on all the information I have collected, and if I defeat back, I have received. And on the floor last week, I asked our staff, if they are working to get a safe space or if they are aware of safe space, if they are looking for a new place, new location, I was advised then they are not, as far as they know, they are not working together with them. Then I received from safe space, similar indication that they are not.

And I actually, I don’t understand, and this is the kind of a broken communication. Our staff and the strategic tables that we did say, it’s permanent and we keep extending and we are not keeping a word to the residents in that area that they will be moving to a different location which we built our case on. So based on all these circumstances and what happened during the last week, I will not be supporting this additional funding. I actually believe that based on my experiences last seven days, I’m not gonna wait till May 28th and then May 28th.

I don’t think there will be even fair to the agency. I do believe against certain values that this agency brings to our community, as I mentioned. I hope they come, I hope that they will, if they still feel that there is that need, they will come back with a strategic plan. Again, this is the funding.

So maybe they do have the funding and maybe they can continue even pass beyond May 28th. We don’t know that. But bottom line is, in terms of us keeping a word to the residents, what we decided last year, I will not and based on last week and the input I received from the residents and people on the street as well, I will not be supporting this additional funding. Thank you.

Councillor Ferrell. Thank you, Your Worship. So the reason that this motion is a referrals, ‘cause we did get a communication from safe space to directly communicate with the board. So this allows that, this allows us to get to the table and see what exactly can be done.

With respect to temporary versus permanent, we are still within the time period of temporary, if it is temporary. There’s clearly a need when you go out there, we see the need and I fear that if we were to, just stop, seize these services, we will see that need way more visually on the streets. In OEV, I do believe that, you know, you are seeing a beneficial impact to the area with safe space. If safe space, if there are work that can be done with the organization, you know, we should be present.

We should approach with a methodology that shows that we are present and we’re willing to work with safe space. Any agency that I have in my ward, I am like that. Even if I disagree, I disagreed with the Arc originally on their funding. I let the Arc operate without any input and the Arc and what they were doing and they showed me, the Arc showed me at that William and Queens location, that they can run a very good operation.

That changed my boat and I am trying to approach the Arc as I would approach all the other agencies in a way that would have us work together and have the most beneficial and amplified impact that we can see. So this is why you see this referral. This is why I’m supporting it. It is a referral for us to approach safe space and see what can be done for the area.

Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, your worship. And I first of all wanna thank the mover and the seconder for bringing this referral of the referral to the next SBPC meeting. I agree with Councillor Stevenson when it comes to, there was no presentation.

And I do think we need to hear from safe space on their funding. And that’s what this referral is about. So I am hoping my colleagues will support the referral to hear further from safe space about their plan. And following up on Councillor Ferrer’s comments about, and following up on Councillor Preble’s comments about somehow that this is going to be a permanent situation.

I don’t even think we’re there right now. This is based on a temporary financing for safe space to the end of July 31st. This motion itself is a referral to hear from safe space. I appreciate everyone’s comments here, but I wanna hear from them.

So I’m hoping you will support this referral. Okay, other speakers. Mr. Trossa.

Thank you very much. My position has not changed. I think it’s very important that we give this agency the opportunity to come in and talk to us and make the same type of presentation that we’ve heard from other agencies. And I think it would be a fundamental problem of just basic justice and fairness, not to at least hear them.

And in case anybody is not following this debate, what’s on the floor right now is not funding this agency. What’s on the floor right now is giving them a chance to come in and make a presentation to us. And from the sounds of what I’m hearing on this Council through the chair, they’ve got a heavy burden, but they should be given the opportunity in the interest of fairness to make that case. I also want to take issue with the claim that really it’s only fair to them to let them know the answer is no, and they can shut down because of the lateness of the day.

We were told by staff at the last meeting that they had a little bit of float because they had underspent their accounts a little bit. So even though the initial expenditure went till the end of May, they’ll be okay if this carries on until a few days into June. So please don’t make the claim that it’s unfair to them, not to give them the opportunity to come in and speak. Not only is it fair for them to come in and speak, I think that members of this Council have an obligation to hear this existing agency out and to hear what they have to say.

And I think that if we tell them, you know what, we don’t even want it from you because we’ve already made up our minds. We’ve already made up our minds without you coming in and having the chance to make what’s going to be a very difficult presentation where there’s a high burden of persuasion. They should be given the opportunity to do that. So I think if you have any doubt about this, and it sounds to me there’s a lot of doubt around this table, you should at the very least have a presentation from them and listen to what they have to say.

And if you want to vote against the funding, it’s that point, go ahead. Vote against the funding at that point. But I think we should at least give them the opportunity to come in and state their case. Thank you very much.

Other speakers, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. So I’ve heard people make a fairness argument on both sides. For me, this is actually not an issue about be fair to them.

You’re being fair to somebody else. We didn’t invite my sister’s place to come and make a presentation on the 28th. We didn’t invite London Cares to come and make a presentation on the 28th. And nor did we receive proposals or communications or any expression of interest from them to continue.

Nor did we receive that from safe space. We received a motion on the day of the committee from counselors to consider adding this one organization as well. We only had one agency that was involved in winter response after we extended previously from the end of March. So the funding would have run out already had there not been one extension given.

But in that time from the end of March until now, we only had one agency that submitted a communication that said, hey, if you give us a little more runway, we got an idea for you about a year-round response. Only one took that initiative. And that’s the one that we received the communication from at SPPC. And that’s the one that I just supported in my previous vote, the temporary extension of funding for.

The time for me is up, the winter response is schedule 10 at the end of this month. And that is for me where the line is drawn. I had one agency that was proactive. Now I have one agency being reactive and I have other agencies who we’ve not even heard from.

I know that even though we are approving today an extension for the ARC, there are still layoff notices going to staff this week because the extension that they are providing is not going to be the exact full suite that they have been providing through the winter response. So they have been preparing to contract already even with this extension. So at this point, I am not moving forward with this and I’m actually not moving forward with more extensions and temporaries. What I want to see moving forward is a year-round plan so that we’re not dealing with funding requests every two months coming before us with agencies saying, I need this amount, I need that amount.

And if you don’t do this, then it’s going to have such an impact. Yes, there are going to be people who are not going to receive service. Funding isn’t extended to some other organizations but we have organizations like the ARC, like the Salvation Army, like the men’s mission who will be continuing to provide services in this community. Not every service is closing down.

The winter response is retracting. It’s May, it’s not January. The winter response is retracting and that’s why I won’t be supporting entertaining more requests for funding extensions. Councilor Raman.

Thank you and through you. I want to thank my colleagues for the discussion today around this referral. I do still think it’s important that we refer this item and I just wanted to one, let you know that I did receive communication from other organizations following saying, thank you for bringing forward the referral because it allows others that may not have known that this was part of the conversation that was happening to now bring and express interest. And I see this as an opportunity for a continuation of dialogue and conversation.

And what my concern is if we don’t, if we express by not going forward with the referral. And again, the referral is really an opportunity for the group to come to us and have some discussion. And I have to say that perhaps there hasn’t been that willingness. And again, we have very few agencies and partners right now that are doing this very difficult work.

And I do think it’s really important that we take the opportunity to hear from them as men as often as possible about this work. One, I will say I come from an educational background and a lived experience background that does not allow me to have this fulsome understanding. So every time I’m invited in to learn, I will take that opportunity. But also every time there’s an opportunity to hear and listen, I will do so.

And I think what I see is we have a system and a process here at council that maybe isn’t fully understood by all of our community agency partners organizations that are doing this very difficult work. And I want to make sure that the process by which we govern is not the reason why an organization is not going to end up doing the difficult and needed work they’re doing. So if all we’re doing is we’re referring this so that we’re giving groups the organizations the opportunity to come back to us and have a discussion, we are continuing to leave that space open for conversation. And we know what happens when we don’t leave that space for conversation.

We know what happens when we don’t engage. And again, I think that there’s opportunity for engagement, there’s opportunity for learning. No matter what we end up doing, in terms of funding or not funding in the end, we owe the organization an opportunity to have this discussion with us so that we can also learn from what they experienced this year. So keeping that dialogue open is important.

I think it’s incumbent on us. Thank you. Any other speakers? Councillor Lehman.

Thank you. I think what we’re seeing here is a bit of a state that we find ourselves in. We had these discussions about two years ago and we decide the best way to have it just to look at this issue that we see on our streets was to have community of the whole. We have all the agencies that have been touched on in conversation today come into a room and develop a solution that everyone can get behind.

And out of that came the idea of the ARHOB system, which I supported because it had two fundamental properties. One, it had supportive care, mental health and addiction, and two, provide transition into more permanent housing. We had a generous benefit to come through with funding, substantial funding, at the beginning of that, so when that solution was proposed, we had a number of hubs announced, but I haven’t heard much on that front lately, and I think what we’re seeing right now is a rush into that void by various agencies. My concern is that we’ll get back to what we try to avoid is kind of a hodgepodge funding model as opposed to one where everyone of non-profit, social agencies, government, residents got together and came up with a solution.

So I supported Arcade because of the extension, because it had at its core the fundamental parts, they had some supportive care, and also they were transitioning people into more permanent housing. But even when Arcade comes back to us in the summer, I will not be supporting more funding in that direction until I hear an update on where we are in the ARHOB system. I gotta know, are we still proceeding in that direction? And if not, then what is our alternative?

Is our alternative to go back to where we’re seem to be now agencies coming on their own, presenting their business cases and looking for funding? I didn’t support Safe Space Request at committee, and I’m not gonna do it tonight. I will support Arcade for the reasons I mentioned, but I really need to hear where we’re at in our ARHOB system. Are we going forward with that?

What’s the advancements? What’s impeding us? Is it because we didn’t have the agencies come forward? They’re gonna run the places, if not, why not?

And if the ARHOB system is gonna go forward, then what’s our plan? Are we going to go back to handling individual requests from different agencies? Other speakers, this is on the referral, which is the committee’s recommendation from the previous SPPC meeting. So that’s on the floor, and we’ll open that for voting.

For those having difficulties with the system, either press control F5 or F5. Voting verbally as well as an option. Councilor Stevenson votes no. Thank you, noted.

Councilor Cutty votes no. It goes in the vote. Motion fails on a tie, seven to seven. Councilor Ferra concludes that item.

I don’t think there’s anything else on the SPPC report, Deputy Mayor. Oh, that also concludes the 9th report of the SPPC. Okay, the next report is planning in the environment committee. That’s the seventh report of planning environment committee.

I’ll turn it over to Chair Layman to present that report. Yes, Councilor. My understanding was if the referral failed, then we would vote on the motion. So that motion doesn’t automatically get on the floor in the absence of a failed referral.

Yes, there’s something else that could be done here or at a subsequent meeting, but there’s nothing— Okay, well, I’d like to move that motion. You like to move, which motion? The motion that is to when we were referring. Anyway, I’ll just withdraw that, thank you.

Okay, thank you. Okay, since you withdraw that, I’m going to talk to the clerk later about that sort of scenario, but there’s nothing on the floor now. We can move on with the next committee report. It seems like everybody’s okay with that.

Go ahead, Councilor Layman. Thank you, bringing forward a seventh report of the planning environment committee. I’ve had one request to pull number 11. I have no other requests on any other items.

We dealt with separately. Okay, so number 11 would be dealt with separately. Other planning committee items that colleagues would like dealt with separately. No, seeing none, go ahead and make a motion, Councilor Layman.

So I’ll move one through 10 and 12 through 14. Okay, that’s moved by the chair. I need debate or discussion on those items from the planning committee. Debate on this, go ahead, Councilor Cudi.

Thank you, worship and through you. I just want to speak very briefly to number 12, development, Kalei Lee Road and 1588 Clark Road. I want to thank members of PAC committee for approving this unanimously. I want to thank staff and planning for all the work you did on this.

I want to thank the developer, Siften Properties for their work. Your worship, this is a really, really big thing for the East End. Deputy Mayor Lewis, I spoke about this at length. This is a development that we don’t see in the East End forever.

And it certainly hasn’t been in the past number of years. And this is an opportunity for us, your worship, to really show and showcase the East End, the Northeast of London and the properties that we have out there. This is such a great development that we’re going to be doing with Siften Properties. And I want to speak very, very quickly about how cooperative Siften Properties has been with my constituents in Ward 3.

In fact, they actually moved, Siften moved the entrance way to the development to accommodate the lifestyle of one of my constituents because the lights of cars would be shining through their windows. So this is an opportunity for us, your worship, to really celebrate a great opportunity for something that doesn’t come to the East End. We often see this going to the West or the Northwest, maybe Hyde Park or Oak Ridge, but we are so grateful to have such great partners in Siften Properties. And again, I’m very thankful to the partners that we have in Siften, to our team in planning, and again, to my colleagues in Peck for passing this unanimously.

Look forward to this development going forward. Thank you. Any other comments on all of the planning items with the exception of 11? Okay, we’re gonna open that for voting.

Sir Trussell, stating a vote of yes, closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you. I’ll put number 11, the deputy mayor had requested that this be pulled, as he, I believe he has an amendment.

So this is regarding 379, 390 Hewitt Street and 748 King Street. I’ll put that on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor. I look for speakers to go ahead, Deputy Mayor.

Yeah, sure, worship. It is my intent to move a small amendment to this. And it would simply be the addition of one it being noted clause to the end. That clause would read it being noted further that SPA 23-097 for parking lot works, and this is a site plan approval application number that I’m referring to, has been received by the city and should the applicant enter into a signed development agreement and demonstrate progress on the parking lot improvements before the expiration of this extension, the council shall consider an additional extension of no less than two years.

A seconder for that question, can I, let me make sure there’s even a seconder first. Seconder, yes, okay. So maybe it’s a point of order question. I just wanted to get the language cleaned up, so I wouldn’t allow it.

Go ahead, Councillor Ramen. Thank you through you. This is a shall or a may. It is a shall consider, moved and seconded.

You can go ahead with the discussion. Certainly, so your worship colleagues, this application came before us about a year ago for temporary parking lot use on a site, which had been operating that way, but was not within the zoning on that property. At that time, there was discussions and the direction was that we wanted to see some parking lot improvements, but also that should the applicant proceed with their application and building permits to advance their additional tower that council would consider up to a three year extension. At planning, we had the update from staff that in fact the building permits had been applied for.

That was in process, so they had met the condition for us to consider three years. We chose to consider one year because we still want to see parking lot improvements that we asked for, some greening, some landscaping to around so that it’s not just an asphalt ocean on that site to be implemented. The applicant has submitted the site plan. Before that site plan can be finalized, of course, they have to enter into a development agreement with the city.

At that point, they could proceed with their permits for the parking lot works. This is not a small investment and they have communicated with me since planning committee that they estimate that this will be about a half a million dollars. And understandably, they don’t want to invest half a million dollars in parking lot improvements. If in 12 months, they can’t have it as a parking lot anymore.

They had asked for three years. We said, you can have a year and come back to us in a year. What I’m suggesting by this being noted is that we indicate, and again, it’s not binding, it’s shall consider, but to give the applicant some indication that council will hear them again for a further extension that if they make progress, they can come back for an extension. To get the two years, that would give them the three years they originally requested.

Rather than having them come back again a third time for a third year, if they go ahead and make these improvements, my hit being noted would say, planning committee will hear it again next year, and shall consider whether or not to give them the two years that would round out their three year request. It’s not binding on us, but it does give them some surety that our intent is to hear their request again and to acknowledge that their original request was for three years. OK, other speakers to this amendment? Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. I struggle with this one a little bit, because we really, really need housing. And I really, really want development in all these village. And we’ve got a developer who’s willing to build another tower whose tenants in their other building don’t have access to the parking spaces that they need, right?

So we have Londoners having a really tough time these days. It’s tough to find an apartment. It’s tough to find a parking space that they need until we get a transit system up and running that maybe we won’t need as many parking spaces. But right now, these tenants need a parking space.

And we, as City Council, when we do this, we’re hurting those tenants who are left uncertain. Do you sign a lease? Are you still going to have a parking space? Is it someplace that you want to rent?

And we’ve got a developer who has come before us. They came last year asking for three years to use a parking space that would allow their tenants to continue to have parking. They’re building enough underground parking to absorb all of that. So this is not going to be a long-term parking lot.

There are plans for another tower as well. So I guess my question to staff is they came before us last year asking for the three years. They’re investing a huge amount of money in this area of the city providing desperately needed housing. Is there something precluding us from giving them what they’re asking for, which is the three years?

I mean, is there something that stops us from doing this? Or is that an option? Go to our staff on this. Thank you through your worship.

There is the London Plan policies that preclude this as well as the Cori area strategy that precludes parking lots to continue. We would like to see them developed rather than a surface parking lots. And that would be an notwithstanding the direction of staff. But the proposed language that is before us gives us some guidance and gives that direction of how we can proceed and implement that direction.

Thank you, Lynn, through you. I understand the reasoning behind the staff report. But I’m wondering, as City Council, is this the best that we can do? Or is there an option to give them the full amount that they’re looking for?

So the question of Council’s authority, could we do basically more if we wanted to? Thank you, Your Worship, through you. Yes, the Council can decide one year, two years, three years. And the policy framework is no more than the three years.

Okay, thank you. I do really appreciate the Deputy Mayor working with Medallion on this. And we have a letter before us that is in the added agenda or on the agenda here where they’re saying they’re not sure they’re gonna go ahead with this under the hope that this Council would do them the honor of granting another couple of years parking lot there. There is not a lineup of people wanting to develop that spot.

We have tenants who desperately need the parking. They are being asked to spend $325,000 to do the parking lot improvements, to make it better and make it more in alignment with the London Plan. They are willing to do that, even though they’re only gonna have that lot for three years. They know that we’re gonna revoke that at the end of the three years, but they are willing to spend $325,000 and lose 19 parking spaces.

They are also gonna pay $303,000 for the building permit, $314,000 for the park fee. And then they’re gonna pay to demolish the building and then they’re gonna pay to build the building. And for some reason, we’re saying we’re not sure we’re gonna give you the three years. We’re gonna give you one at a time and hope that you’re gonna continue to make that investment in the hope that council would grant it again.

I’m really concerned. And the reason I’m concerned is the McCormick property. It came before council. There was all kinds of concessions in terms of height.

The public was so excited that we were gonna have a development there. I was excited as a new counselor. There was a small little issue over the park. Nobody thought that was gonna be a big deal.

Well, it was a big deal. That building is falling down. It is causing all kinds of public safety concerns. And we were this close.

We were this close to a deal, but we didn’t settle on the park. So we can say, yeah, yeah, one more year and then come on back and we’ll issue you another two years. 30 seconds. Do we know that medallion is going to do that?

‘Cause they have lots of opportunities around. So I would like to see, and I’d like to move an amendment that it being further noted that we take out the consider and that council shall do an additional extension of no less than two years. So just removing the word consider, which means they still have to come forward. They have to pay the fees.

They have to take the time to come before council. So it’s a bit of a compromise. I understand. I know you wanna make the case on that.

Give me one second. So colleagues, I’m just gonna ask you to stop talking so I can get some information. So can you amend an amendment for sure you can, but I just wanna make sure the way that we give permission for these things, I need to go to staff on, if we drop the consider, does it actually do the intent with the council or does something actually still need to come back to us for approval at some point? I’m just trying to determine that because I don’t know the process you guys do.

So I’m gonna ask you if you can comment on that for me. Thank you, Your Worship. Yes, we would need to bring back another bylaw that would be very clear and explicit for those two years. Is a timeline and there’s an exact date that’s provided as part of the bylaw.

So Councilor, I know you could amend this, but from my understanding of the answers that the staff and the clerk have given, shall consider is right. It would force it to come before us. We can’t prejudge a bylaw that would come before us that would create that permission because we have to be open to the discussion debate at the time. So although that could be done, it would be the process that we have to follow to do it.

So we can’t pre-guarantee a future bylaw coming before council on how we would vote because it still would have to come before council. So I understand your intent of what you’re trying to do, but without us going back and rewriting the bylaw in this moment, we would not be able to proceed in the way that we’re proceeding now. So it’s not, you could strike consider if you want it, but it’s not gonna change the fact that a decision still has to come back before council for consideration of people are free to vote how they want in that moment. Yes, and I understand that.

And if it said, if we took out the consider, yes, council could always go back on that and do what they want next year, but at least it would be council saying to them right now that if you do X, Y, and Z, we’re saying that we would, you know, things can come up, things can change, but we’re giving them the commitment that says, if you do X, Y, and Z, we will approve it, knowing there’s no guarantee, but we make that commitment. Right, so what I’m saying is, yes, you can amend it to strike that. It does not mean in this moment, they’re guaranteed that. So I just don’t want any Councillors to have any false pretenses about that mean.

Like a decision and a by-law still needs to come back triggered by the being noted clause for us to make a decision linked to the other components of that. So you can move the amendment and I can look for a seconder, but I just wanna be clear that we’re not going to, we can’t prejudge the decision of council ‘cause it has to come back, so it’s not going to cause a guarantee in any sort of way. I think that’s fair, it just at least gives them the notice of where council sits right now because that committee, a few said that they wouldn’t do it. I guess you wanna proceed.

I would like to proceed. So you’re amending the amendment to strike which part? Remove, consider. Then it doesn’t, it actually doesn’t make sense if you do that ‘cause it says shall.

Shall approve? I don’t know what the wording is, authorize. And we can’t put a proof. Proceed with?

  • Pre-supposes. Pre-approve it. I don’t know if we’re gonna get to the language that’s going to make you satisfied with this because it will be still considered by council. Like consider is probably the right word.

We have to consider the by-law before us for debate. Striking considered leaves of blank. Other words are gonna mean the same thing. We cannot put a word in there that guarantees any sort of approval because it has to come forward through an actual process.

So I may not have an answer for you, Councillor, but the clause needs to make sense for you to amend it and you can’t get it to a point where it’s a guarantee. There are a way to amend it that gets us as close as possible to a guarantee because to— So, okay, I have to deal with the point of order. Go ahead. Thank you.

I’m wondering if there’s in the book, I believe I saw something about efficient meetings and I’m just wondering if this kind of falls outside the perspective ‘cause I think we’ve spent about four or five minutes talking about language for this amendment and just given we’re all busy, I’d love to see us move forward more efficiently and if this could be dealt with at a later time, more efficiently, that’d be great. So yes, that’s a thing. No, I have not deployed that yet and I’m not going to in this moment ‘cause we’re very close to done and now we’re doing another thing that takes more time. So you can call a point of, you can challenge the chair, but I’m not gonna invoke that clause at this moment.

Okay, I’m gonna come back and say, no, like consider is the strongest word. We will consider it, we shall consider it. That means it’s gonna come before us if they trigger this, that is the consideration. That’s probably the best you can do.

So I think you can just finish your comments, you got about 10 seconds left. I don’t think an amendment here is going to be any stronger than it is, okay? I wanna do everything we possibly can do to ensure this development proceeds. Thank you, any other speakers?

On the amendment. Okay, let’s open that for voting. Yeah, yeah, this is the amendment to the amendment. No, this is just the amendment.

There’s no amendment to the amendment. This is just what Deputy Mayor Lewis put on the floor. Councillor van Nerberg in indicating a vote of yes, closing the vote, motion carries 11 to three. Okay, so now the as amended motion, you’re willing to move that?

You could just stand up and move it then? So as amended, I need a seconder for the as amended motion. Okay, well, let me get an as amended motion on the floor first, seconded by, oh, sorry, Councillor Layman, did you wanna present it so that he can sit down? Okay.

So you need a mover? I need a motion as amended. Yeah, and I’ll just second. Okay, let’s find you’re both on it.

Okay, so now it’s the as amended motion. Councillor Stevenson. Is it possible for me to make an amendment to take it from one year to three years in part A? There’s a by-law associated with this.

Does the by-law need to be rewritten to accommodate that? So it’s a refer back with that direction. Councillor Stevenson, I need your microphone. Go ahead.

Yes, that’s correct, Your Worship. So Councillor Stevenson, the answer is no, you can’t amend it here. You could refer it back with the direction to amend it, but it’d have to go back to staff to rewrite the by-law because there’s a by-law associated with this before council that we would need to change to actually do it. There’s not an alternate by-law.

So no. I’ll move the referral then. Okay, Councillor Stevenson wants to move a referral with a direction, Councillor Stephen. So I’m not writing your motion for you, but I understand your intent.

So you want to move a referral to subsequent meeting of council with a by-law that has an period not to exceed three years. Is that what you want to do? I’m looking for, I don’t know what to do here. I want to ensure this precedes.

And so they’re looking, they’re going to be United. No, Councillor, you don’t get to debate now. If you have a motion, you got to prepare ahead of time. I’m trying to help you how best I can in the moment.

There’s a by-law associated with this. I think it’s clear it is very difficult to change it here. It’s a referral back to council or committee for the change. That’s the only thing that can be done.

So you want to move that referral? Yes, to council or committee, what’s your referral to? Is there a seconder for that referral of this back to PEC to consider by-law with an extension of three years? Yes.

All right, that’s on the floor for discussion. Now look for speakers. So just a point of order of your worship, that would make the previous amendment null and void. So if that amendment is going to be moved and seconded, it would also have to strike via being noted that we just passed.

It’s not, we’re not approving it now. We’re referring the whole thing. So it all has to get cleaned up at committee. So that can go back to, but the committee’s going to have to clean this up.

If council- So the point of order of the referral is to a subsequent meeting of council. With a- No, it’s the planning committee. That’s back to planning. That’s what the council wants.

And that’s what the other councilor seconded. So it’s on the floor. Okay, so this is a debate on this referral. Go ahead, councilor Rama.

Thank you and through you. So I’m confused because I thought that’s what we already did at PEC. We already looked at this. It was originally considered for the three years within the report.

And now it’s, so I’m not seeing what’s different. That’s right. And so if a majority of council wants to override the work that PEC did and send it back for more, council has that right. But you’re right, this discussion did occur at committee, but sometimes things get referred back.

It’ll depend on if the vote is successful or not, whether that occurs. Go ahead. Sorry, and through you. So the difference in the it being noted versus what’s now on the floor is that one was tied to the completion of some upgrades as well as the application.

Is this one no longer tied to that? A referral takes precedent. So referring back to the committee refers all of this back. Nothing is approved.

So all council did was amend the committee’s recommendation, but we’ve not decided on any of this yet because it’s only an as-emitted motion and that as-emitted motion got referred. So council has, although they’ve added to the committee’s work, has made no final decision on this. And then a referral takes precedent and it all goes back. And I would admit there needs to be a little bit of cleanup here by the committee if council approves this.

But we’ve not, although we voted on that, we’ve not decided on it. Okay, so on the referral back to committee, any other speakers? Go ahead. Thank you.

I appreciate council being willing to consider this referral. As I said, the McCormick property, I don’t want to see that happen here. We received, the reason why I’m asking the planning committee to relook at this is we received a letter dated May the 12th from medallion that says that council, the requesting council grant the original request to extend the existing temporary by-law as approved for the additional three years in order to alleviate the ongoing parking issues related to the adjacent apartment complex. They say here that the requested three-year extension will be needed, not convenient, not what they would like to see, but will be needed to build the proposed phase three development 24-story apartment building, including some affordable units at Dundas and Hewitt streets and get occupancy.

If only a one-year extension was granted, which is what is before us today, the upgrades to the surface parking lot would not be logical financially with that short of a timeframe. It’s a $325,000 investment in that parking lot. There’s over 600,000 in fees that would be coming into the city and we would get a guarantee or a closer guarantee of this actually being built. So I really think it’s worth a committee’s time to just look at this again, given this new letter from medallion saying that, in fact, they say here the extension of the three-year years for the existing temporary zone will allow medallion to complete construction of the phase three tower, which includes an extra 188 parking spaces.

But they’re saying that this will prove, that three-year extension would also prevent any further undue stress on the current tenants who are utilizing the parking. There’s a very important two-page letter here that I really think planning an environment committee needs to have a look at. I do not want to face the word for residents and explain to them again that we got to the 99th yard and we let it go. So please support this referral.

We can have the discussion at planning and come to council with something that is gonna truly support our commitment to housing and affordable housing options. Can anybody else on the referral? This is on the referral back to planning committee. We’ll open that for voting.

Sir Trussell. Those in the vote, motion fails, four to 10. So now we have the as amended motion, which was there before the referral, any further discussion on the as amended motion for anybody who hasn’t spoken yet. Open that for voting.

Sir Hillier. I vote yes. Thank you, close in the vote. Motion carries 12 to two.

Thank you. That concludes the seventh report on the planning environment. Okay, we’re on to add a reports. There’s a report from council and closed session.

I’m gonna ask Councilor McAllister to present the items from closed session. So all these are my reports. I’m happy to report out on the council and closed session. Number one, partial property acquisition 977 Oxford Street East, 836 Quebec Street Infrastructure Renewal Program.

Then on the recommendation of the deputy city manager of finance supports with the concurrence of the deputy city manager environment and infrastructure on the advice of director, realty services with respect to the property located at 977 Oxford Street East, 836 Quebec Street, further described as part of lots 10, 11, and 12, plan 423 designated as part one, plan 33R dash two, one, three, three, four, in the city of London being part of pit number 08285 dash 0089, containing an area of approximately 0.056 acres, 2,466 square feet. As shown on the location map attached to appendix B for the purpose of providing sufficient width to accommodate the addition of bike lanes on Quebec Street and left turn lane on Oxford Street East, following actions be taken. A, the offer submitted by 235167 Ontario Incorporated, the vendor to sell the subject property of the city for the sum of 120,000, is that 120,000? No, sum of, it’s 120,000.

B accepted subject to terms and conditions as set out in the agreement as appendix C and B, the financing for this acquisition be approved as set out in source of financing report, here to as appendix A. Number two, property acquisition, 25, Queens Place, down the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports and with concurrence of deputy city manager planning and economic development on the advice of the director of realty services with respect to the property known as 25, Queens Place, owned by Habitat for Humanity, Heartland, Ontario Incorporated, containing an area of approximately 1.84 acres, legally described as part lots, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, 11, A and B, block one plan, two, 196, third, designated as parts two, three and four, plan 33R dash two, zero, three, one, four in the city of London, county of Middlesex, the property as shown outlined in appendix C of the staff report, the following actions be taken, the agreement of purchase of sale, the agreement as appendix B, submitted by the corporation of the city of London, the purchaser to repurchase the property from Habitat for Humanity, Heartland, Ontario Incorporated, for the sum of 595,000 B accepted subjects of the terms and conditions set out in the agreement, B, the financing for the acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report here to as appendix A, number three settlement agreement, 977-993 Wellington Road, Wellington Gateway Project, that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager, finance and sports on the advice the director of realty services with respects of property at 977-993 Wellington Road, further described as part lot 25, concession two, designated as part one on expropriation plan, ER 154-5931 and part one on expropriation plan, ER 154-5933, in the city of London as part of pin 084-0341/42, as shown on the location map as appendix B for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions have taken. The settlement agreement for Wellington plays a holdings to settle the outstanding expropriation compensation to the property owner for the sum of 38,300, be accepted subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement as appendix C, and sorry, that was A, this is B, the financing for this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing here to as appendix A for property acquisition, eight-ray would have Wellington Gateway Project, that on the recommendation of the WCD manager of finance supports with the concurrence of the director of construction and infrastructure services on the advice of director of realty services with respect to property located at eight-ray would have, further described as part of lot 26 and 27 plan 167 forth, designated as part one plan 33R-6320 in the city of London being all of pin 08358-0100 LT, containing an area approximately 6,070 square feet as shown on the location map as appendix B for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken. The offer submitted by Matthew Leering, the vendor to sell the property to the city for the sum of 555,000 be accepted subject to the terms and conditions that set on the agreement as appendix C, and B, the financing for this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report here to as appendix A, I’ll remove that report.

So you’re gonna move one and two, and then the Wellington Gateway ones are gonna move separate. So we’ll just do items one and two first. That’s on the floor by Councillor McAllister. Is there any discussion on one and two?

No, this is just one and two, okay? We’ll open that for voting. Trust votes, yes. Thank you noted, closing the vote.

Motion carries 14 to zero. And now three and four, Councillor McAllister’s moving. These are the ones associated with the Wellington Gateway. Any discussion?

Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to one. Okay, thank you, Councillor McAllister, appreciate it. Deferred matters, there’s none, inquiries.

Give me a signal for any emergent motions, there’s none. Onto bylaws, so what we’ll do for, okay, so here’s what we’re gonna do for the bylaws, we’re gonna do all the bylaws plus the two addeds. The exception, the Wellington Gateway bylaws, then we’ll do the Wellington Gateway bylaws after. Does anybody want anything else pulled out separate from that?

Councillor Hopkins. I’m not sure if it’s, the bylaws being changed for bill number 164, which is Hewitt and King. Are you, you want it separate? Are you asking if it needs to be changed?

No, it has, I’d just like to vote on it separate. If there’s another change to be made on that bylaw. All we did for that was from the committee’s recommendation was that it being noted clause, so that’s not attached to the bylaw. Okay, I’d just like to vote on it separately.

Okay, all right, so you want the bylaw voted on separately. Okay, so I need a mover and a seconder for bills 153 to 165, including the two addeds with the exclusion of the 164 that Councillor Hopkins just asked to be out and the two Wellington Gateway ones are out. Moved by Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, we’ll open first reading for voting. Councillor Stevenson.

I vote yes. Thank you, closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Okay, mover and a seconder for second reading, Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Ferra, any discussion on second reading of these bills? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Third reading of the bills moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor McAllister, we’ll open third reading for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Okay, next, I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for the two bylaws associated with the Wellington Gateway pieces that came out of in-camera.

Moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Troso. That’s first reading, so I’ll open first reading for voting. Councillor Troso indicates a vote of yes. Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to one.

Second reading for these two bills. Moved by Councillor Ferra, seconded by Councillor Layman. Any discussion on second reading? Okay, we’ll open that for voting.

Councillor Troso indicates a vote of yes. Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to one. Third reading of these, mover and a seconder please. Seconded by Councillor Pribble, we’ll open third reading for voting.

Seconded by Councillor Pribble. Voting yes. Thank you, closing the vote, motion carries 12 to one. Okay, and now we’ll deal with 164, which is the bill that Councillor Hopkins has to be pulled separately.

I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for first reading for that Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Cady. We’ll open first reading for voting moment. Closing the vote, motion carries 11. Okay, second reading of this bill, Councillor Pribble, seconded by Councillor Stevenson.

We’ll open that for voting. I vote no. Thank you, closing the vote, motion carries 11 to two. Third reading of this bill for mover, Councillor Cady, seconded by Councillor Stevenson.

We’ll open third reading for voting. I vote yes. I vote yes, it’s frozen. Confirming by vote yes, thank you, it’s frozen.

I also vote yes, mine crashed. Councillor Cady votes yes. Do you close and vote, motion carries 11 to two. Please see the bylaws, thank you for that colleagues.

We’re on to German, I look for a motion to adjourn. Moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor McAllister. All those in favor by hand. No motion to adjourn.

Great, we’re adjourned. Thank you.