June 4, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:05 PM; it being noted that Councillors P. Van Meerbergen and S. Hillier were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED Councillor P. Van Meerbergen discloses a pecuniary interest in item 7, clause 2.7, having to do with London-Middlesex Child Care and Early Years Service System Plan 2024-2028, by indicating that his wife owns and operates a day care.

2.   Recognitions

His Worship the Mayor recognizes the recipient of the 2024 Tim Hickman Health and Safety Scholarship: Lindsay Townsend.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

4.1 Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations 

A matter pertaining to reports, advice and recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation concerning labour relations and employee negotiations in regard to one of the Corporation’s unions including communications necessary for that purpose and for the purpose of providing instructions and direction to officers and employees of the Corporation. (6.1/10/CSC)

4.2 Solicitor-Client Privilege 

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose with respect to the motion to refer the London Hydro Inc. 2023 General Meeting of the Shareholder Annual Resolutions to a future meeting of Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee and direction to retain a forensic accountant to confirm London Hydro Inc.’s financial statement related to fair value of debt as of December 31, 2022. (3.1/10/SPPC)

4.3 Security of Property 

A matter pertaining to the security of the property of the municipality or local board. (4.1/10/CSC)

4.4    (ADDED) Solicitor-Client Privilege / Litigation/Potential Litigation        

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, from the solicitor and officers or employees of the Corporation and litigation or potential litigation, with respect to appeals related to 1156 Dundas Street at the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”) and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation. (6.1/9/PEC)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Council convenes In Closed Session, from 1:25 PM to 1:50 PM.

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

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Franke

That the Minutes of the 10th Meeting of the Municipal Council, held on May 14, 2024, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

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

6.1 Update and Next Steps for Gasoline Powered Lawn and Garden Equipment

  1. S. Lavigne 

    2. J. Grahn 

    3. N. Balcarras 

    4. L. MacDougall 

    5. Michaela VB 

    6. Councillor S. Franke

6.2 London & Middlesex Community Housing

  1. Deputy Mayor S. Lewis and Councillor H. McAlister

6.3 743 Wellington Road (Z-9720)

  1. R. Rains

6.4 530 Oxford Street West (OZ-9712)

  1. (ADDED) A. Johnson

6.5 193-199 College Avenue (OZ-8693)

  1. A. Soufan, President - York Developments 

    2. J. Farquhar, D. Cunningham, N. Feagan, M. Murray, S. Tanton, M. Tanton 

    3. S. Bentley, President - Broughdale Community Association 

    4. (ADDED) B. Evans and M. Evans 

    5. (ADDED) J. Roy 

    6. (ADDED) B. Shepherd 

    7. (ADDED) B. J. DuBrule 

    8. (ADDED) D. MacLeod 

    9. (ADDED) W. Rodger and J. Rodger 

    10. (ADDED) C. Littlejohn 

    11. (ADDED) L. Kaufman 

    12. (ADDED) C. Scott-Barré 

    13. (ADDED) M. Murray 

    14. (ADDED) S. Tanton 

    15. (ADDED) M. Tanton 

    16. (ADDED) M. Tovey, President - St. George-Grosvenor Neighbourhood Association

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   7th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2024-05-21 CPSC Report

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 7th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of item 7 (2.7).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) 5th Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 5th Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee (AWCAC), from the meeting held on May 2, 2024:

a)    the resignation of J. Higgins BE RECEIVED;

b)    the following actions be taken with respect to private zoos and mobile animal display shows:

i)    W. Brown, Chair, AWCAC, BE REQUESTED to have delegation status at the appropriate Standing Committee when the decision has been rendered relating to the private zoos and mobile animal display shows; and,

ii)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to keep the AWCAC included in the discussion on the private zoos and mobile animal display shows and offer advice and recommendations;

c)    H. Duhamel and S. Ryall BE REMOVED from the AWCAC due to lack of attendance; and,

d)    clauses 1.1, 3.1 to 3.4, 5.1 to 5.3 and 5.6 BE RECEIVED. (2024-D19)

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.3) London Fire Department Single Source Request for Fire Apparatus (SS-2023-172)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 21, 2024, related to the London Fire Department Single Source Request for Fire Apparatus (SS-2023-172):

a)    in accordance with Section 14.4(g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Fire Administration BE AUTHORIZED to negotiate a single source purchasing agreement with City View Specialty Vehicles for delivery of eleven (11) Rosenbauer Fire Apparatus including; two (2) Pumper Rescues, two (2) Tanker Pumpers, three (3) Engines, one (1) Hazardous Materials Response Vehicle, and three (3) Aerial Ladders;

b)    Fire Administration BE AUTHORIZED to proceed with the replacement of eleven (11) Fire Apparatus, and associated equipment, during the 2024 - 2027 Multi-Year Budget period as per the approved Fire capital budget, noting that these replacements have an estimated cost of $24,407,900 CAD (excluding HST), plus an additional $2,226,600 CAD (excluding HST) for equipment that will be acquired through regular suppliers and added to the replacement apparatus;

c)    approval hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London negotiating satisfactory prices, terms, conditions, and entering into a purchasing agreement with City View Specialty Vehicles, Inc., and subject to future budget approval;

d)    that the funding for this procurement BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report; it being noted that the Source of Financing Report only addresses the current year capital funding that is required and that the remaining cost of these replacements will be reflected as a commitment against the 2025, 2026 and 2027 budgets included in the approved 2024 - 2027 Multi-Year Budget;

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

f)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with the authorization set out in parts a) through d) above. (2024-V04)

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.4) London Fire Department Single Source Request for a Hazardous Materials Pod

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 21, 2024, related to the London Fire Department Single Source Request for a Hazardous Materials Pod:

a)    in accordance with Section 14.4(e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Fire Administration BE AUTHORIZED to enter into negotiations with Advanced Containment Systems Inc. (ACSI), for the purchase of one (1) Hazardous Materials Pod;

b)    Fire Administration BE AUTHORIZED to enter into a contract agreement with Advanced Containment Systems Inc. (ACSI) for the purchases of additional PODs for a one (1) year contract term with optional three (3), one (1) year contract renewals;

c)    the London Fire Department BE AUTHORIZED to procure one (1) Hazardous Materials Pod, in combination with the Hazardous Materials Response Vehicle from Advanced Containment Systems Inc. (ACSI), for an amount not exceeding $500,000 CAD ($368,053 USD at current exchange rate) (excluding HST), and with a minimum 50% downpayment at time of order; and,

d)    the funding for this procurement BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report. (2024-P04)

Motion Passed

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated May 21, 2024, BE INTRODUCED at the Council meeting on June 4, 2024 to approve the potential demolition of vacant buildings located at 219 Adelaide Street North, 695 Victoria Street and 1317 Hastings Drive under the Property Standards provisions of the Building Code Act. (2024-P10D)

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.6) SS-2024-143 Single Source: Prime Consultant to Design an Affordable Housing Project at 1958 Duluth Crescent, Block 5

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 21, 2024, related to SS-2024-143 Single Source Prime Consultant to Design an Affordable Housing Project at 1958 Duluth Crecent, Block 5:

a)    architects Tillmann Ruth Robinson Inc. BE APPOINTED as the Prime Consultant service provider to complete the design and future contract administration for an Affordable Housing development at 1958 Duluth Crescent, Block 5 (Building A) at the total estimated amount of $651,572.00 (excluding HST) in accordance with s. 14.4(e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

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

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

f)    the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development BE DELEGATED authority to approve amendments or amending agreements associated with the formal contract with the prime consultant architect. (2024-S11)

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (2.2) Neighbourhood Decision Making: 2024 Update

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the staff report dated May 21, 2024, with respect to the Neighbourhood Decision Making 2024 Update, BE RECEIVED; it being noted that a verbal delegation from B. Samuel, with respect to this matter, was received. (2024-D19)

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (2.7) London-Middlesex Child Care and Early Years Service System Plan 2024-2028

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 May 21, 2024, related to the London-Middlesex Child Care and Early Years Service System Plan 2024-2028:

a)    the proposed London-Middlesex Child Care and Early Years Service System Plan, 2024-2028, as appended to the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED and BE ENDORSED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to implement the proposed London-Middlesex Child Care and Early Years Service System Plan; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in relation to this plan. (2024-S01)

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.2   8th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2024-05-22 CWC Report

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 8th Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 15 (2.12) and 16 (4.1).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) 6th 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 6th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on May 1, 2024:

a) the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to report back at a future meeting with the feasibility of providing consumer information about pet goldfish; it being noted that the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee (ESACAC) held a general discussion with respect to the Business Licensing By-law communication that was included on the April 7, 2024 ESACAC Agenda;

b) upon completion and approval to possible amendments to the Neighbourhood Decision Making Program by the Municipal Council, the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to attend a future Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee (ESACAC) meeting; it being noted that the ESACAC held a discussion with respect to this matter; and,

c) clauses 1.1, 3.1 to 3.3, 4.1 and 5.1 BE RECEIVED;

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

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) Springbank Dam Decommissioning and Bank Restoration: Consultant Award for Contract Administration

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 22, 2024, related to the Springbank Dam Decomissioning and Bank Restoration Consultant Award for Contract Administration:

a)    Stantec Consulting Limited BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection, contract administration, and environmental management services for the Springbank Dam Decommissioning and South Bank Restoration project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $728,067.15, including 20% contingency (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, bringing the total engineering services for this project to $1,056,385.43 (excluding HST);

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

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

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

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-A05)

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.3) Hamilton Road and Gore Road Intersection Improvements: Appointment of Consulting Engineer (Relates to Bills No. 200 and 201)

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 May 22, 2024, related to the Appointment of a Consulting Engineer for the Hamilton Road and Gore Road Intersection Improvements:

a)    MTE Consultants Inc. BE APPOINTED as the Consulting Engineer to complete the detailed design and tendering services at an upset amount of $431,545.18 (excluding HST) in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

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

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents including agreements, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-A05)

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (2.4) Oxford Street West and Gideon Drive Intersection Improvements – Appointment of a Consulting Engineer for Contract Administration 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 May 22, 2024, related to the Appointment of a Consulting Engineer for Contract Administration Services for the Oxford Street West and Gideon Drive Intersection Improvements:

a)    R.V. Anderson Associates Limited, BE AUTHORIZED to complete the contract administration and construction supervision required for this project as per the R.V. Anderson Associates Limited work plan, on file, at an upset amount of $459,298.00 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

d)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the Corporation of the City of London and a private property owner in relation to the cost-sharing of servicing works contained within the Oxford Street West and Gideon Drive Intersection Improvements project; and,

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents including agreements, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-A05)

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (2.5) RFT-2024-049 Greenway Incinerator Rebuild Tender Award - Irregular Result

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 May 22, 2024, related to RFT-2024-049 Greenway Incinerator Rebuild Tender Award Irregular Result:

a)    the bid submitted by Lor-Don Limited at its tendered price of $10,168,921.95 (excluding HST), for the rebuild of the Greenway Incinerator BE ACCEPTED;

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

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

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

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-E03)

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (2.6) New Traffic Signals, Pedestrian Signals and Pedestrian Crossovers (Relates to Bills No. 191, 202, and 203)

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 May 22, 2024, related to New Traffic Signals, Pedestrian Signals and Pedestrian Crossovers:

a)    the installation of the following traffic signals BE APPROVED:

i)    Byron Baseline Road at Lansing Avenue;

ii)    Dundas Street at Ashland Avenue;

iii)    Dundas Street at Kellogg Lane;

iv)    Dundas Street at Eleanor Street;

v)    Highbury Avenue N at Canada Post Driveway;

vi)    Longwoods Road at Westdel Bourne; and,

vii)    Queens Avenue at English Street;

b)    the installation of the following pedestrian signals BE APPROVED:

i)    Fanshawe Park Road W at Hyde Park Rotary Link;

ii)    Oxford Street W at Summit Avenue;

iii)    Richmond Street at Plane Tree Drive;

iv)    Sunningdale Road E at Canvas Way; and,

v)    Adelaide Street N at Victoria Street

c)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 4, 2024, to amend By-law PS-114, entitled “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London” related to the new pedestrian crossovers planned to be installed in 2024. (2024-T07)

Motion Passed

8.2.8   (2.7) Procurement Approvals for the Detailed Design for the Bradley Avenue Extension

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 May 22, 2024, related to Procurement Approvals for the Detailed Design for the Bradley Avenue Extension:

a)    approval BE GIVEN to award a single source contract to TMHC Inc. in the amount of $138,935.50 (excluding HST), to complete a Stage 4 archaeological assessment as required under the Ontario Heritage Act, in accordance with Section 14.4 (d) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the contract with WSP E&I Canada Limited BE INCREASED by $463,123.20 to a total amended value of $1,264,757.95 (excluding HST) to complete additional detailed design and environmental activities to support the environmental permitting, design and tendering of the project, in accordance with Section 20.3 (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.2.9   (2.8) SS-2024-162 Traffic Signal Controller Single Source Purchase

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 May 22, 2024, related to SS-2024-162 Traffic Signal Controller Single Source Purchase:

a)    the quotation submitted by Innovative Traffic Solutions Ltd. at its quoted price of $226,600.00 (excluding HST) BE ACCEPTED in accordance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy Section 14.4 d) Single Source;

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED with the Source of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report;

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

d)    the approvals 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. (2024-T07)

Motion Passed

8.2.10   (2.9) Basement Flooding Grant Program By-law Amendment (Relates to Bill No. 183)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the Added Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council Meeting to be held on June 4, 2024 to amend the Basement Flooding Grant Program By-law (By-law A.-7562-160), by deleting Schedule ‘A’ and replacing it with an updated Schedule ‘A’, as appended to the above-noted by-law. (2024-F11A)

Motion Passed

8.2.11   (2.10) Appointment of Consulting Engineer for the Thames River Sanitary Siphon Capacity Expansion Project - Single Source Procurement

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That on the recommendation of Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 22, 2024, related to the Appointment of Consulting Engineer for the Thames River Sanitary Siphon Capacity Expansion Project Single Source Procurement:

a)    Stantec Consulting Ltd. BE APPOINTED consulting engineer to complete the pre-design, and detailed design of the Thames River Sanitary Siphon Capacity Expansion project, in the total amount of $516,180.50, including 10% contingency (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 14.4(e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

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

e) the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-A05)

Motion Passed

8.2.12   (2.11) Partial Closing Pine Street Road Allowance (Relates to Bill No. 192)

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 May 22, 2024, related to a Partial Closing Pine Street Road Allowance:

a)    the closing of part of Pine Street on Registered 433 being Parts 1 and 2 on Plan 33R-21849 BE APPROVED; and,

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 4, 2024 to stop up and close part of Pine Street; it being noted that subject to the passing and registration of the above-noted by-law in the Land Registry Office, an easement over Part 2 plan 33R-21849 will be conveyed to London Hydro. (2024-T09)

Motion Passed

8.2.13   (2.13) Contract Amendment: Dingman Creek Subwatershed Stage 2 Lands: Schedule C Municipal Class Environmental Assessment

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 May 22, 2024, related to a Contract Amendment for the Dingman Creek Subwatershed Stage 2 Lands Schedule C Municipal Class Environmental Assessment:

a)    the contract with Kontzamanis Graumann Smith MacMillan Inc. BE INCREASED by $178,398.00 to a total amended value of consulting engineers to complete the detailed design for the Dingman Creek Stage 2 EA project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $876,927.21, including contingency (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

d)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract in connection with this contract amendment; and,

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-A05)

Motion Passed

8.2.14   (2.14) Mud Creek East Branch Phase 2A and 2B: RFT-2023-128- Culvert Installation Project and Consultant Fee Increases

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 May 22, 2024, related to the Mud Creek East Branch Phase 2A and 2B, RFT-2023-128, Culvert Installation Project and Consultant Free Increases:

a)    Mud Creek East Branch Phase 2A – Culvert Installation Project (Tender RFT-2023-128) construction contract value with Birnam Construction Ltd. BE INCREASED by $954,027, including contingency, for a total contract value of $3,356,250.56 (excluding HST) in accordance with Section 20.3 (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the engineering design fees for AECOM Canada Ltd. BE INCREASED in accordance with the estimate on file, by $322,091.24 (excluding HST), from $942,832.61 to a total upset amount of $1,264,923.85 in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

c)    the Contract Administration fees for AECOM Canada Ltd. BE INCREASED in accordance with the estimate on file, by $44,924.25 (excluding HST), from $127,098 to a total upset amount of $172,022.25 in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

d)    the financing for these projects 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 these projects; and,

f)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-A05)

Motion Passed

8.2.15   (2.12) Update and Next Steps for Gasoline Powered Lawn and Garden Equipment

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 22, 2024, related to an Update and Next Steps for Gasoline Powered Lawn and Garden Equipment:

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to design and implement an awareness campaign for households and lawncare service providers that focuses on better lawn and garden practices to help the environment and take climate action for implementation in February to April 2025;

c)    the Civic Administration BE APPROVED to pursue a multi-municipality project to complete the remaining work in London on emerging best practices, applicable legislation and jurisdiction, costs and benefits, potential incentive programs, and other factors regarding gasoline powered lawn and garden equipment, including a funding submission to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Green Municipal Fund; and,

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take the following actions with respect to the Sound By-law:

i)    report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with proposed amendments to the Sound By-law to restrict the operation of gas-powered lawn and garden equipment in residential areas from 6pm to 8am; 

ii)    hold a public participation meeting to consider public input at the same meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee; and,  

iii)    circulate the report to relevant community advisory committees for review and feedback in advance of the relevant meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee;

it being noted that communications from the following individuals, with respect this matter, were received:

  •    J.B. Morton;

  •    D. Cameron;

  •    S. Menard;

  •    M. Luce;

  •    Dr. A. Quan-Haase;

  •    D. Sandic; and,

  •    L. Seguin. (2024-V02)

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, pursuant to section 10.5 of the Council Procedure By-law, with respect to the Chair’s ruling on personal privilege, “shall the ruling of the Chair BE SUSTAINED?”

Motion Passed (8 to 6)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That part d) of the motion be approved as follows:

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take the following actions with respect to the Sound By-law:

i)    report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with proposed amendments to the Sound By-law to restrict the operation of gas-powered lawn and garden equipment in residential areas from 6pm to 8am; 

ii)    hold a public participation meeting to consider public input at the same meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee; and,  

iii)    circulate the report to relevant community advisory committees for review and feedback in advance of the relevant meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee;

Motion Failed (0 to 14)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That part a) of the motion and it being noted be approved as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 22, 2024, related to an Update and Next Steps for Gasoline Powered Lawn and Garden Equipment:

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that communications from the following individuals, with respect this matter, were received:

  •    J.B. Morton;

  •    D. Cameron;

  •    S. Menard;

  •    M. Luce;

  •    Dr. A. Quan-Haase;

  •    D. Sandic; and,

  •    L. Seguin. (2024-V02)

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That part b) of the motion be approved as follows:

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to design and implement an awareness campaign for households and lawncare service providers that focuses on better lawn and garden practices to help the environment and take climate action for implementation in February to April 2025;

Motion Failed (5 to 9)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That part c) of the motion be approved as follows:

c)    the Civic Administration BE APPROVED to pursue a multi-municipality project to complete the remaining work in London on emerging best practices, applicable legislation and jurisdiction, costs and benefits, potential incentive programs, and other factors regarding gasoline powered lawn and garden equipment, including a funding submission to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Green Municipal

Motion Failed (7 to 7)

Item 15, clause 2.12, as approved, reads as follows:

That the staff report dated May 22, 2024, related to an Update and Next Steps for Gasoline Powered Lawn and Garden Equipment BE RECEIVED; it being noted that communications from the following individuals, with respect this matter, were received:

    -    J.B. Morton;

    -    D. Cameron;

    -    S. Menard;

    -    M. Luce;

    -    Dr. A. Quan-Haase;

    -    D. Sandic; and,

    -    L. Seguin. (2024-V02)

8.2.16   (4.1) Transit, Road Network and Active Transportation Planning for West London – Councillor S. Trosow

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the following actions be taken with respect to Road Network and Active Transportation Planning in West London:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Civic Works Committee on transit, road network and active transportation planning for West London;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to include in the report a study of the issue of “filtered-permeability” and other measures with respect to mitigating the effects of cut-through traffic resulting from the opening of Beaverbrook Avenue and Westfield Drive;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consider ongoing input from residents and businesses in the area; and,

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to integrate the report into future MMP reports to the Civic Works Committee;

it being noted that there are several pending and anticipated development applications in the vicinity and the report should consider the cumulative effects of these developments on traffic and transit planning;

it being further noted that community members, including business owners and residents, have raised concerns about ongoing traffic congestion issues in West London in the vicinity of the Wonderland/ Oxford/ Proudfoot/ Beaverbrook/ Cherryhill area, and the need for traffic planning to address increased density from planned developments in this area;

it being further noted that the Mobility Master Plan recognizes that significant transportation improvements are needed in the North and the West; it being noted that funds for projects in these corridors were redistributed to other rapid transit initiatives outside the area;

it being further noted that communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from C. Butler and C. DeGroot, with respect to this matter, were received. (2024-T08)

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

At 2:51 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor S. Lewis in the Chair.

At 2:55 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

8.3   10th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2024-05-28 SPPC Report 10

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 10th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 7 (4.3) and 14 (4.9).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) Request for a Shareholder’s Meeting - Housing Development Corporation (HDC)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for the Housing Development Corporation, London (HDC):

a)      the 2023 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for the Housing Development Corporation, London (HDC) 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 the Housing Development Corporation, London (HDC) 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 the Housing Development Corporation, London (HDC) and to invite the President and CEO and the Board/Chair 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 22, 2024, from M. Feldberg, President and CEO, Housing Development Corporation, London, with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) 2023-2027 Implementation Plan: 2024 Update

Motion made by S. Lewis

That on the recommendation of the City Manager, the report, including the updated 2023-2027 Implementation Plan, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.3) 5th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 5th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee from its meeting held on May 9, 2024:

a)  the ability to have a formal introduction of potential candidates for the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee (DIACAC) BE REFERRED to the Governance Working Group for inclusion with the review of the DIACAC Terms of Reference; and 

b) clauses 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 6.1 and 7.1 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (3.1) London Hydro Inc. - 2023 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder Annual Resolutions (Relates to Bill No. 182)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to London Hydro Inc.:

a)  the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated May 28, 2024 as Appendix “A” entitled “A by-law to ratify and confirm the Annual Resolutions of the Shareholder of London Hydro Inc.” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held June 4, 2024;

b)  the presentation by V. Sharma, CEO and C. Graham, Board Chair, London Hydro Inc., BE RECEIVED;

c)  the 2023 Annual Report on Finance BE RECEIVED; and

d)  the communication from London Hydro Inc. regarding the Election of Directors BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (4.1) Kendra Frye, Associate, Trinity Centres Foundation - Creative Sector Incubation Hub Business Plan

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the presentation dated May 28, 2024, Creative Sector Incubation Hub - Trinity Centres Foundation Business Plan:

a)    the presentation from the Trinity Centres Foundation on behalf of St. Paul Cathedral, Creative Sector Incubation Hub Business Plan BE RECEIVED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to appoint a municipal lead to support the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) grant application, it being noted that no financial contribution will be made by the City toward the FCM grant application;

it being noted that when feasible, expediting the permitting and re-zoning processes for housing, outdoor activations, and the creative hub may be considered by the Civic Administration;

it being further noted the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard a verbal delegation from K. Frye, Associate, Trinty Centres Foundation - Creative Sector Incubation Hub Business Plan.

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (4.2) Future Planning and Growing Hydro Requirements for the Homebuilding Industry

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the communication from J. Zaifman, CEO, London Home Builders’ Association with respect to Future Planning and Growing Hydro Requirements for the Homebuilding Industry BE RECEIVED; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication date May 22, 2024 from J. Vanderbaan, Vice President, Operations & Planning, London Hydro Inc. with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.3.9   (4.4) Resignation from the Committee of Revision/Court of Revision

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Committee of Revision/Court of Revision:

a)  the communication dated May 7, 2024 from D. Millar BE RECEIVED;

b)  the resignation from D. Millar from the Committee of Revision/Court of Revision BE ACCEPTED; and

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

Motion Passed

8.3.10   (4.5) 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 May 7, 2024 from D. Millar BE RECEIVED;

b)  the resignation of Don Millar and Doug Fleming from Eldon House Board of Directors BE ACCEPTED;

c)  the communication dated May 17, 2024 from J. O’Neil, Interim Chair, Board Treasurer and M. Halliday, Board Secretary, Eldon House BE RECEIVED; and

d)  the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to delay the advertisement to the Eldon House Board until September 2024; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated May 17, 2024 from J. O’Neil, Interim Chair, Board Treasurer and M. Halliday, Board Secretary, Eldon House with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.3.11   (4.6) London & Middlesex Community Housing

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

a) the resignation of John Corboy from the London & Middlesex Community Housing Board of Directors BE ACCEPTED;

b) Sara Pineros BE APPOINTED as First-Class Member to the London & Middlesex Community Housing Board of Directors for the term ending December 31, 2026; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication date May 16, 2024 from P. Squire, Board Chair, Board of Directors, London & Middlesex Community Housing with respect to this matter; and

c) the application from S. Pineros BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.12   (4.7) Resignation of Councillor D. Ferreira from RBC Place London Board of Directors

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to appointments to the RBC Place London Board:

a) the resignation of Councillor D. Ferreira, from RBC Place London Board BE ACCEPTED; and

b) the selection of a Councillor Member to fill the current vacancy on RBC Place London Board BE REFERRED to the next meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated May 16, 2024 from Councillor D. Ferreira with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.3.13   (4.8) Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group Selection

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following Council Members BE APPOINTED to the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group Selection for the term ending November 14, 2026:

Deputy Mayor S. Lewis

Councillor P. Cuddy

Councillor S. Stevenson

Councillor C. Rahman

Councillor S. Lehman

it being noted that Councillor E. Peloza was appointed as Chair and Councillor J. Pribil was appointed as Vice Chair by Mayoral Decision 2024-006.

Motion Passed

8.3.15   (5.1) RBC Place London General Manager and CEO Appointment

Motion made by S. Lewis

That Darrin Pollard BE APPOINTED as the General Manager and CEO to the London Convention Centre Corporation, operating as RBC Place London as of July 1, 2024; it being noted that Strategic Priorities Policy Committee received a communication dated May 16, 2024 from S. Judd, Chair, RBC Place London Board of Directors with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (4.3) 10th Report of the Governance Working Group

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 10th Report of the Governance Working Group from its meeting held on May 13, 2024:

a)   the following actions be taken with respect to the report dated May 13, 2024, Council Policy: Remuneration of Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members:

i)    the office space, technology, and ward expense allowances BE REMOVED from the scope of this review of Council Compensation;

ii)    a Councillor Job Description Subcommittee BE FORMED and tasked with creating a draft job description for consideration at the June 24, 2024 meeting of the Governance Working Group; and

iii)   that Councillors J. Pribil, A. Hopkins, and Councillor C. Rahman BE APPOINTED to the sub-committee; it being noted that Councillor C. Rahman will serve as Chair of the subcommittee;

b)   the following actions be taken with respect to the Deferred Matters List dated May 13, 2024:

i)   the Deferred Matters List BE RECEIVED; 

ii)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to include in the updated General Policy for Community Advisory Committees that all community advisory committee appointments beginning or mid-term be considered by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee; and

iii)   the delegation request from Bill Brock BE REFERRED to the June 24, 2024 meeting of the Governance Working Group for consideration;

c)   clause 1.1 BE RECEIVED.

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That part a) iii) be amended to read as follows:

iii)   that Councillors P. Cuddy, J. Pribil, A. Hopkins, and Councillor C. Rahman BE APPOINTED to the sub-committee; it being noted that Councillor C. Rahman will serve as Chair of the subcommittee;

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That item 7, clause 4.3, as amended BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Item 7, clause 4.3, as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 10th Report of the Governance Working Group from its meeting held on May 13, 2024:

a)   the following actions be taken with respect to the report dated May 13, 2024, Council Policy: Remuneration of Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members:

i)    the office space, technology, and ward expense allowances BE REMOVED from the scope of this review of Council Compensation;

ii)    a Councillor Job Description Subcommittee BE FORMED and tasked with creating a draft job description for consideration at the June 24, 2024 meeting of the Governance Working Group; and

iii)   that Councillors P. Cuddy, J. Pribil, A. Hopkins, and Councillor C. Rahman BE APPOINTED to the sub-committee; it being noted that Councillor C. Rahman will serve as Chair of the subcommittee;

b)   the following actions be taken with respect to the Deferred Matters List dated May 13, 2024:

i)   the Deferred Matters List BE RECEIVED; 

ii)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to include in the updated General Policy for Community Advisory Committees that all community advisory committee appointments beginning or mid-term be considered by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee; and

iii)   the delegation request from Bill Brock BE REFERRED to the June 24, 2024 meeting of the Governance Working Group for consideration;

c)   clause 1.1 BE RECEIVED.

8.3.14   (4.9) Consideration of Appointments to the London Community Advisory Committees

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Community Advisory Committees:

a) the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee for the term ending March 31, 2025:

  •    Linda Armstrong

  •    Ann Hayes

  •    Miriam Love

b) the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee for the term ending March 31, 2025:

  •    Stephen D Amelio

  •    Devinder Luthra

  •    Leah Thomas Gray  

  •    Chantal Kamgne Tagatzi

c) the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Ecological Community Advisory Committee for the term ending March 31, 2025:

  •    Nicholas Allen

  •    Lela Burt

  •    Susan Howard

  •    Manuel Spiller

d) the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee for the term ending March 31, 2025;

  •    Andrea Butnari

  •    Nicole Karsch 

  •    Lauralee Bushan Jazey

e) the following individual BE APPOINTED as a Voting Member to the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee for the term ending March 31, 2025:

  •    Leah Thomas Gray.

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That part b) of the motion be amended to read as follows:

b) the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee for the term ending March 31, 2025:

  •    Stephen D Amelio

  •    Devinder Luthra

  •    Kayte Warmington  

  •    Chantal Kamgne Tagatzi

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by J. Pribil

That item 14, clause 4.9, as amended BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Item 14, clause 4.9, as amended reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Community Advisory Committees:

a) the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee for the term ending March 31, 2025:

  •    Linda Armstrong

  •    Ann Hayes

  •    Miriam Love

b) the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee for the term ending March 31, 2025:

  •    Stephen D Amelio

  •    Devinder Luthra

  •    Kayte Warmington  

  •    Chantal Kamgne Tagatzi

c) the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Ecological Community Advisory Committee for the term ending March 31, 2025:

  •    Nicholas Allen

  •    Lela Burt

  •    Susan Howard

  •    Manuel Spiller

d) the following individuals BE APPOINTED as Voting Members to the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee for the term ending March 31, 2025;

  •    Andrea Butnari

  •    Nicole Karsch 

  •    Lauralee Bushan Jazey

e) the following individual BE APPOINTED as a Voting Member to the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee for the term ending March 31, 2025:

  •    Leah Thomas Gray.

8.4   8th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2024-05-22 PEC REPORT

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 8th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of items 8 (3.3), 9 (3.4) and 11 (3.6).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) 5th Meeting of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning (Relates to Bill No. 189)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that the 5th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on May 8, 2024, was received.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.2) Repeal of Heritage Designating By-law – 432 Grey Street (Relates to Bill No. 190)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the request by the British Methodist Episcopal Church to repeal the Heritage Designating By-Law for property located at 432 Grey Street:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 22, 2024 as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 4, 2024, to repeal the heritage designating by-law for the property located at 432 Grey Street; and,

b) the property at 432 Grey Street BE REMOVED from the Register of Cultural Heritage Resources;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.  (2024-R01)

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.3) Delegated Authority for Heritage Easement Agreements update (Relates to Bill No. 185)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the revised “Delegated Authority for Heritage Alteration Permits By-law,” appended to the staff report dated May 22, 2024 as Appendix A, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 4, 2024 to amend By-law C.P.-1502-129 as amended, being “A by-law to delegate certain authority of Municipal Council to consent to or grant permits for alterations to heritage designated properties”, to include written approvals for properties subject to Heritage Easement Agreements;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   (2024-R01)

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (2.4) Heritage Easement Agreement for 39 Carfrae Street Update

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the staff report dated May 22, 2024 entitled “Update on Heritage Easement Agreement for 39 Carfrae Street” BE RECEIVED for information;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.  (2024-R01)

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (3.1) Changes to the Conservation Act

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the presentation from Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) with respect to legislative changes to the Conservation Act and it’s impacts on the UTRCA BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (3.2) 50 North Centre Road (Z-9721) (Relates to Bill No. 204)

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 Rock Developments (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the property located at 50 North Centre Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 22, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 4, 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 (ASA8) Zone TO an Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (ASA8(_)) Zone;

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 amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;

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

  •    the recommended amendment would facilitate the reuse of the existing building with an additional use that is appropriate for the context of the site;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   (2024-D09)

Motion Passed

8.4.10   (3.5) Environmental Housekeeping Amendment to the London Plan (O-9693) (Relates to Bill No. 187)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to an Environmental Housekeeping Amendment to The London Plan:

a)    the proposed attached, revised by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 4, 2024, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by amending wording to clarify roles and responsibilities, correcting errors and omissions, updating references, and incorporating amendments to The London Plan Map 1 – Place Types, Map 5 – Natural Heritage, and Map 6 – Hazards and Natural Resources as a result past development applications and City projects;

b)    Policy 1335 in Appendix ‘A’ BE EXCLUDED from the proposed amendments as the amendments are housekeeping matters;

c)    Policy 1335 BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration to provide clarifying language to reflect that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry has jurisdiction over approving Ontario Wetland Evaluation System submissions; and,

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

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

  •    M. Wallace;

  •    S. Pratt, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority; and,

  •    A.M. Valastro;

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 general intent of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Environmental Policies; 

  •    the recommended amendments will correct inconsistencies and clarify roles and responsibilities; and,

  •    the recommended amendments will ensure Map 1 – Place Types, Map 5 – Natural Heritage, and Map 6 – Hazards and Natural Resources are up to date;

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-D09)

Motion Passed

8.4.12   (5.1) Deferred Matters list

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the April 30, 2024 Deferred Matters List BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.8   (3.3) 743 Wellington Road (Z-9720)(Relates to Bill No. 205)

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 Zelinka Priamo on behalf of Olde School Professional Properties Inc., relating to the property located at 743 Wellington Road:

a)    the proposed attached, revised by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 4, 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 Restricted Office (RO1) Zone TO a Restricted Office Special Provision (RO1()) Zone with the exception of “Emergency Care Establishments” being removed as an additional permitted use under the Special Provisions of the Restricted Office Special Provision (RO1()) Zone; and,

b)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice be given with respect to the proposed by-law as the amendment to the Zone is to remove a use;

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

  •    a communication dated May 8, 2024 from B. A. Roach, Adams Law; and,

  •    petitions signed by approximately 734 people and 647 people;

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

  •    H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

  •    N. Pasic;

  •    K. Simard;

  •    R. Rains;

  •    T. Gilders;

  •    T. Shimbine;

  •    I. Skinner;

  •    F. Durand;

  •    W. Campbell;

  •    J. Goodwin;

  •    C. Williams;

  •    A.M. Valastro;

  •    J. Durand;

  •    M. Wallace;

  •    D. Stacey; and,

  •    N. Wyatt;

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

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

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

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

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   (2024-D09)

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

8.4.9   (3.4) 530 Oxford Street West (OZ-9712) (Relates to Bills No. 186 and 206)

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 Captain Generation Mall Limited (c/o MHBC), relating to the property located at 530 Oxford Street West:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 22, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 4, 2024, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Transit Village Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated May 22, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on June 4, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with the Official Plan, The London Plan, as amended in part (a) above, to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Community Shopping Area/Temporary (CSA4/T-66) Zone and Open Space (OS4) Zone, TO a Residential R9 Special Provision/Community Shopping Area Special Provision (R9-7()D150H115/CSA4()) Zone and Open Space (OS4) Zone;

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

i)    implement all Tree Assessment Report recommendations into a future Site Plan Application;

ii)    update the Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) and implement TIA recommendations into a future Site Plan Application;

iii)    provide a minimum transparent glazing on the first two storeys facing the public streets of 50%;

iv)    utilize visual markers, etched or stained glass to provide bird-friendly glazing, adhering to the bird friendly CSA;

v)    investigate renewable energy sources for the buildings and non-fossil fuel based energy sources for heating and cooling; and,

vi)    provide additional landscaping to assist with stormwater management and reduce the heat island effect;

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

  •    a communication from A. Johnson;

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

  •    S. Allen, MHBC Planning;

  •    A.M. Valastro; and,

  •    A. Johnson;

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 (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, promote transit-supportive development and support long-term economic prosperity. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future;

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

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

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

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   (2024-D09)

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

8.4.11   (3.6) 193-199 College Avenue (OZ-8693)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of College Avenue Lofts Inc. (c/o York Developments) relating to the property located at 193-199 College Avenue:

a)    the development, as proposed, BE ENDORSED:

it being noted that the following zone and special provisions would facilitate the proposed development:

R10-2(_)    193-199 College Ave

a)    Regulations

i)    Front Yard Depth (Minimum) – 5.0 metres

ii)    Rear Yard Depth (Minimum) – 4.0 metres 

iii)    East Interior Side Yard Depth (Minimum) – 2.5 metres 

iv)    Lot Coverage (Maximum) – 45%

v)    Building Height (Maximum) – 21.0 metres

vi)    Density (Maximum) – 196 units per hectare

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

  •    S. Tantum;

  •    A.M. Valastro; and,

  •    J. Farquhar;

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

  •    the requested amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which promotes intensification and redevelopment in appropriate locations; and,

  •    the proposed development represents an appropriate intensification of the site;

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters.   (2024-D09)

Motion Passed (9 to 5)

8.5   10th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2024-05-27 CSC Report 10

Motion made by H. McAlister

That items 1 to 7 (2.7) of the 10th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

At 3:25 PM, Councillor S. Trosow leaves the meeting.

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by H. McAlister

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.1) 2023 Annual Update on Budweiser Gardens

Motion made by H. McAlister

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the 2023 Annual Report on Budweiser Gardens, as appended to the staff report as Appendix “B”, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.2) Budweiser Gardens Expansion Project Memorandum of Understanding (Relates to Bill No. 173)

Motion made by H. McAlister

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

a)    the report entitled “Budweiser Gardens Expansion Project Memorandum of Understanding” BE RECEIVED for information; and

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 4, 2024 to execute the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (Schedule “A”) documenting the timing and manner of contributions and disbursements for the previously approved Budweiser Gardens Expansion Project.

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (2.4) Development Charge Alternative Payment Agreement Amendments (Relates to Bill No. 184)

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 4, 2024 to amend By-law No. A.-7956-84, as amended, being “A by-law to approve and authorize a Development Charges Alternative Payment Agreement template to provide for the alternative payment of Development Charges for developments that qualify for deferred Development Charge payments made under Section 27 of the Development Charges Act, 1997 S.O. 1997, c. 27, as amended; and to delegate the authority to enter into such Agreements to the City Treasurer or delegate”, to repeal and replace Schedule “1” to the by-law.

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (2.5) 2024 Reserve and Reserve Fund Monitoring and Housekeeping Report (Relates to Bills No. 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, and 181)

Motion made by H. McAlister

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

a)    the 2024 Reserve and Reserve Fund Monitoring and Housekeeping Report BE RECEIVED for information; and

b)    the reserve fund proposed by-laws, as appended to the staff report as Appendix “C”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 4, 2024.

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (2.6) 2023 Annual Report on Development Charges Reserve Funds and Development Charges Monitoring

Motion made by H. McAlister

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

a)    the 2023 Annual Report on Development Charges Reserve Funds and Development Charges Monitoring BE RECEIVED for information in accordance with section 43 (1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, which requires the City Treasurer to provide a financial statement relating to development charge by-laws and associated reserve funds; and

b)    the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports BE DIRECTED to make the 2023 Annual Report on Development Charges Reserve Funds and Development Charges Monitoring available to the public on the City of London website to fulfill Council’s obligation under section 43 (2.1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997.

Motion Passed

8.5.7   (2.7) 2023 Parkland Reserve Fund Annual Financial Statement and Reporting of Former Section 37 Planning Act (Bonusing) Funds

Motion made by H. McAlister

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

a)    the 2023 Parkland Reserve Fund annual financial statement BE RECEIVED for information in accordance with section 42 (17) of the Planning Act, 1990;

b)    the 2023 reporting of former Section 37 bonusing funds held by the City of London BE RECEIVED for information; and

c)    the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports BE DIRECTED to make the 2023 Parkland Reserve Fund annual financial statement and reporting of former Section 37 Planning Act (Bonusing) funds still held available to the public on the City of London website.

Motion Passed

8.5.8   (2.3) Expropriation of Lands - Wellington Gateway Project - Clark’s Bridge Civil Works (Relates to Bill No. 188)

Motion made by H. McAlister

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

a)    application be made by The Corporation of the City of London as Expropriating Authority to the Council of The Corporation of the City of London as approving authority, for the approval to expropriate the land required for the Wellington Gateway project Clark’s Bridge Civil Works;

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

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

d)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report as Schedule “B”, BE INTRODUCED at the Council meeting to be held on June 4, 2024 to authorize the foregoing and direct the Civic Administration to carry out all necessary administrative actions.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

At 3:34 PM, Councillor S. Trosow enters the meeting.

8.5.9   (4.1) Request of Removal of Glass Barrier in Council Chambers

Motion made by H. McAlister

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take the necessary steps to remove the temporary barrier and all associated supports from the public gallery of the Council Chambers; it being noted that the Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated May 9, 2024 from Councillor E. Peloza with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

8.5.10   (4.2) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Shine the Light on Woman Abuse

Motion made by H. McAlister

That the following actions be taken with respect to the proclamation requests listed on the agenda for the May 27, 2024 Corporate Services Committee:

a)    the issuance of proclamations BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Corporate Services Committee; and

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review the current Issuance of Proclamations Policy, including clarifying that requests for proclamations can be made by individuals, and report back to a future meeting of the Corporate Services Committee.

4.2   Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Shine the Light on Woman Abuse

4.3   Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Christian Heritage Month

4.4   Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Childhood Cancer Awareness Month

Motion made by H. McAlister

That part a) of the motion be approved and reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the proclamation requests listed on the agenda for the May 27, 2024 Corporate Services Committee:

a)    the issuance of proclamations BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Corporate Services Committee; and

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

Motion made by H. McAlister

That part b) of the motion be approved and reads as follows:

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review the current Issuance of Proclamations Policy, including clarifying that requests for proclamations can be made by individuals, and report back to a future meeting of the Corporate Services Committee.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

9.   Added Reports

9.1   11th Report of Council in Closed Session

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 11th Report of the Council, In Closed Session BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed

That progress was made with respect to items 4.1 (6.1/10/CSC), 4.2 (3.1/10/SPPC), 4.3 (4.1/10/CSC), and 4.4 (6.1/9/PEC) as noted on the public agenda.

9.2   (ADDED) 9th Special Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 9th Report of the Special Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

Councillor E. Peloza enquires with respect to the process of the property tax bill insert from the Mayor’s Office. The Mayor provides information about the mailout and costing and the Deputy City Manager, Financial Services provides a response related to Council Policy.

Councillor P. Van Meerbergen enquires with respect to grass cutting.  The Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure provides a response with respect to the operations of grass cutting in city parks and alongside roads.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 170 to Bill No. 206, BE APPROVED, with the exception of Bill No.’s 186, 188, 202, 203, and 206.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by J. Pribil

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Second Reading of Bill No. 170 to Bill No. 206, BE APPROVED, with the exception of Bill No.’s Bill No.’s 186, 188, 202, 203, and 206.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by C. Rahman

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 170 to Bill No. 206, BE APPROVED, with the exception of Bill No.’s Bill No.’s 186, 188, 202, 203, and 206.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 188, 202, and 203, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

That Second Reading of Bill No. 170 to Bill No.’s 188, 202, and 203, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by J. Pribil

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 188, 202, and 203, BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 186 and 206, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 186 and 206, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 186 and 206, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

The following Bills are enacted as By-laws for The Corporation of the City of London:

Bill No. 170

By-law No. A.-8499-122 – A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 4th day of June, 2024. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 171

By-law No. A.-8500-123 – A by-law to appoint Tim Smuck, Director, Life Stabilization, as Administrator pursuant to the Ontario Works Act, 1997. (Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development)

Bill No. 172

By-law No. A.-8501-124 – A by-law to approve the potential demolition of vacant buildings at 219 Adelaide Street North, 695 Victoria Street, and 1317 Hastings Drive under the Property Standards provisions of the Building Code Act. (2.5/7/CPSC)

Bill No. 173

By-law No. A.-8502-125 – A by-law to authorize and approve a Memorandum of Understanding with respect to the Budweiser Gardens Expansion Project and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Memorandum of Understanding. (2.2/10/CSC)

Bill No. 174

By-law No. A.-8503-126 – A by-law to repeal by-law No. A.-6147-12 being “A by-law to establish the London and Middlesex Housing Corporation (LMHC) Employee Entitlement Reserve Fund.” (2.5/10/CSC)

Bill No. 175

By-law No. A.-8504-127 – A by-law to establish the Capital Asset Renewal and Replacement Reserve Funds by-law and to repeal and replace by-law No. A.-8010-184 being “A by-law to establish the Capital Asset Renewal and Replacement Reserve Funds Bylaw and to govern the administration and management of said funds.” (2.5/10/CSC)

Bill No. 176

By-law No. A.-8505-128 – A by-law to establish the Automated Enforcement Reserve Fund and to repeal and replace By-law No. A.-8267-188 being “A by­ law to establish the Automated Enforcement Reserve Fund.” (2.5/10/CSC)

Bill No. 177

By-law No. A.-8506-129 – A by-law to establish the Civic Investments Reserve Fund and to repeal and replace by-law No. A.-5634-94 being “A by-law to establish the Civic Investments Reserve Fund.” (2.5/10/CSC)

Bill No. 178

By-law No. A.-8507-130 – A by-law to establish the Climate Change Reserve Fund. (2.5/10/CSC)

Bill No. 179

By-law No. A.-8508-131 – A by-law to establish the Development Charges Statutory Exemptions Tax Reserve Fund. (2.5/10/CSC)

Bill No. 180

By-law No. A.-8509-132 – A by-law to establish the Development Charges Statutory Exemptions Water Reserve Fund. (2.5/10/CSC)

Bill No. 181

By-law No. A.-8510-133 – A by-law to establish the Development Charges Statutory Exemptions Wastewater Reserve Fund. (2.5/10/CSC)

Bill No. 182

By-law No. A.-8511-134 – A by-law to ratify and confirm the Annual Resolutions of the Shareholder of London Hydro Inc. (3.1/10/SPPC)

Bill No. 183

By-law No. A.-7562(e)-135 – A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-7562-160, as amended, being “A by-law to repeal and replace By-law A.-7015-285, being The Grants for Sump Pump, Sewage Ejector and Storm Drain Connection Grant Program By-law” by deleting Schedule “A” to the by-law and by replacing it with a new Schedule “A”. (2.9/8/CWC)

Bill No. 184

By-law No. A.-7956(b)-136 – A by-law to amend By-law No. A.-7956-84, as amended, being a by-law “to approve and authorize a Development Charges Alternative Payment Agreement template to provide for the alternative payment of Development Charges for developments that qualify for deferred Development Charge payments made under Section 27 of the Development Charges Act, 1997 S.O. 1997, c. 27, as amended; and to delegate the authority to enter into such Agreements to the City Treasurer or delegate” to repeal and replace Schedule 1. (2.4/10/CSC)

Bill No. 185

By-law No. C.P.-1502(d)-137 – A by-law to amend By-law No. C.P.-1502-129, as amended, being “A by-law to delegate certain authority of Municipal Council to consent to or grant permits for alterations to heritage designated properties”, to change Civic Administration titles to reflect the current organizational structure, and to include written approvals for properties subject to Heritage Easement Agreements. (2.3/8/PEC)

Bill No. 186

By-law No. C.P.-1512(df)-138 – A by-law to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to 530 Oxford Street West (3.4a/8/PEC)

Bill No. 187

By-law No. C.P.-1512(dg)-139 – A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to the Housekeeping Amendment. (3.5/8/PEC)

Bill No. 188

By-law No. L.S.P.-3515-140 – A by-law to authorize and approve an application to expropriate land in the City of London, in the County of Middlesex, for the Wellington Gateway Project Clark’s Bridge Civil Works.  (2.3/10/CSC)

Bill No. 189

By-law No. L.S.P.-3516-141 – A by-law to designate 244 Base Line Road East to be of cultural heritage value or interest. (2.1/5/PEC)

Bill No. 190

By-law No. L.S.P.-3517-142 – A by-law to repeal By-law No. L.S.P.-3480-98 entitled, “A by-law to designate 432 Grey Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest”. (2.2/8/PEC)

Bill No. 191

By-law No. PS-114-24015 – A by-law to amend By-law PS-114 entitled, “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London.” (2.6/8/CWC)

Bill No. 192

By-law No. S.-6328-143 – A by-law to stop up and close part of Pine Street. (2.11b/8/CWC)

Bill No. 193

By-law No. S.-6329-144 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Dundas Street, west of Hewitt Street)  (Chief Surveyor – for road dedication purposes pursuant to SPA22-057)

Bill No. 194

By-law No. S.-6330-145 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Huron Street, west of Webster Street)  (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes pursuant to SPA22-078)

Bill No. 195

By-law No. S.-6331-146 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Kilbourne Road west of Malpass Road)  (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes pursuant to Planning & Development file DEL16-021DP)

Bill No. 196

By-law No. S.-6332-147 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (as widening to King Street east of Hewitt Street) (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes pursuant to SPA23-097)

Bill No. 197

By-law No. S.-6333-148 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Main Street, west of Campbell Street)  (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes pursuant to SPA23-081)

Bill No. 198

By-law No. S.-6334-149 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Westminster Drive east of Old Victoria Road)  (Chief Surveyor – for road dedication purposes pursuant to B.025/22)

Bill No. 199

By-law No. S.-6335-150 – A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (as widening to Wonderland Road South and Bradley Avenue West)  (Chief Surveyor - for road widening purposes pursuant to P&D file SPA22-083)

Bill No. 200

By-law No. W.-5868(a)-151 – A by-law to amend By-law No. W.-5868-174, entitled “A by-law to authorize the Colonel Talbot Road 2 Lane Upgrade (Project TS1329).” (2.3/7/CWC)

Bill No. 201

By-law No. W.-5660(b)-152 – A by-law to amend By-law No. W.-5660-92, as amended, entitled “A by-law to authorize Project TS180519 – TIMMS-PTIS – Transportation Intelligence Mobility Management System.” (2.3/7/CWC)`

Bill No. 202

By-law No. W.-5699(c)-153 – A by-law to amend by-law No. W.-5699-66, entitled “A by-law to authorize Project RT1430-1A – Wellington Gateway (South) Construction Rapid Transit.” (2.6/7/CWC)

Bill No. 203

By-law No. W.-5701-154 – A by-law to authorize Project RT1430-1D – Wellington Gateway Stops Rapid Transit. (2.6/7/CWC)

Bill No. 204

By-law No. Z.-1-243216 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 50 North Centre Road (3.2/8/PEC)

Bill No. 205

By-law No. Z.-1-243217 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 743 Wellington Road (3.3/8/PEC)

Bill No. 206

By-law No. Z.-1-243218 – A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 530 Oxford Street West (3.4b/8/PEC)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 4:08 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (3 hours, 23 minutes)

Okay, thanks. Please be seated, everyone. This calls to order the 11th meeting of City Council on June 4th, 2024. We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabak, Haudenosaunee, Lenny Paywalk, and Adawandran 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 Wampabell Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Silver Covenant Chain, the Beaver Hunting Grounds of the Haudenosaunee Nanfand Treaty of 1701, McKay Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, the Huron Track Treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabak, and the Dish with One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabak and Haudenosaunee. Three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and the Muncie Delaware Nation who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs. The City of London is 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 us at councilagenda@london.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. With that, I’m delighted to introduce our O Canada singer for today. Laura MB is an independent Columbian singer-songwriter now based in London, Ontario. Seamlessly blending Latin Pop, an alternative pop, and indie genres, Laura aims to create music that comes from the true authenticity that has the power to inspire and connect people.

Passionate about the art of songwriting, she uses the power of words, poetry, and flow to tell stories that represents life’s experiences and emotions. Laura will also be one of the featured artists at the London Majors Anthem programming this year, so you can catch her singing the anthem at a ball game this summer. The London Music Office is also proud to announce that London has been nominated this year as the Canadian Live Music Industry Awards for the Music City of the Year. Please rise and join me in welcoming Laura who will now be singing the National Anthem for us.

In the drill of some bloods, we see the rise, the true north, strong, and free. O Canada, we stand on guard for thee, while every stand on, stand on guard. Okay, we’ll start with disclosure as a pecuniary interest. Seeing none, I have a recognition of the podium, and then there are several other recognitions that Councillors will do, so I’ll just move to the podium for the planned one on the regular agenda.

Well, today is always an exciting day each and every year when we get to announce the award winner of the Tim Hickman Scholarship. The Tim Hickman Memorial Health and Safety Scholarship is an opportunity to raise awareness of workplace safety in our community. The annual scholarship is awarded to a student in an occupational health or public health and safety-related program. It was established in 2006 as a tribute to Tim Hickman, a young man who died and serviced his community at age 21.

Today, I’m pleased to announce that Lindsay Townsend is the 2024 recipient of this scholarship. Maybe Lindsay, if you want to join me, will I say a few words? Lindsay is currently enrolled in the Fire Inspection and Fire Safety Education Advanced Diploma Program at Fanshawe College. Lindsay has a long time commitment to protecting the community.

She has plenty of experience working as a lifeguard and swim instructor, helping keep our community pools safe and free of injuries. Once she graduates, Lindsay will want to continue her career in public safety and become a Fire Prevention Officer and Fire Safety Educator. Thank you to Lindsay for the work you’re doing now and in the future that you’ll continue to do in the success of your career head. It’s also important for us to take the opportunity to thank our QP locals 101 and 107 and of course the Hickman family for their continued support of this scholarship over the past 17 years.

Please join me in congratulating Lindsay. Lindsay and I had an opportunity to do a big novelty check thing over my office earlier. We decided not to drag it in here but I assure you she got the actual real check but I wanted to invite her to maybe say a few words if you’d like. I just wanted to thank the City of London and the QP locals for the opportunity to receive this award.

Thank you. Okay, next on the list for recognitions I have, Councillor Ferrera. Thank you Your Worship. So I want to take a moment to recognize and celebrate the London Lightning players, coaches and staff on their championship season.

So late last month London Lightning won their third straight league championship defeating the Kitchener Waterloo Titan in the first ever basketball super league final. Since their inception in 2011 the London Lightning have entertained thousands of Londoners from all backgrounds and all ages not only on the court but off the court as well through countless acts of goodwill and consistent community involvement. So I’d like to say congratulations once again to the players, to the coaches and all those behind the scenes who made this latest triumph possible. Your success is truly towards our city’s pride and we look forward to many more victories.

So thank you to the London Lightning. Thank you, Councillor. I have Deborah Lewis next. Thank you, Your Worship.

Colleagues, the Memorial Cup trophy was established by Captain James T. Sutherland to honor those who died in service during World War I and it was rededicated during the 2010 tournament to honor all soldiers who died fighting for Canada in any conflict and I know that Councillor Layman will be sharing some words about that shortly. But while our London Knights were not successful in their quest to bring the Memorial Cup back to London this year, nonetheless we should be celebrating the fact that this season the Knights captured their fifth OHL championship. So 2005, 2012, 2013, 2016 and now again in 2024 and the important contributions that this team makes to us being a city of champions as we just heard from Councillor Ferrer, the Lightning continue to add to cannot be understated.

I want to though take a moment as well to recognize the important partners and the important work that was done over the last week by Budweiser Gardens, downtown London, tourism London, the PA shop who was our video and audio provider and a great word to business, by the way, by Mike Stubbs and Jim Van Horn from CFPL Radio who from Saginaw captured videos that they sent to us to share with the audience at Knights Court from the players thanking them for their support. And most importantly, I want to thank our city staff. I want to thank Jimmy and Chula and Mike McCauley and Tyler Ellucier and their team for the incredible work they did on very short notice to pull together, not a one day but a four day activation of Dundas Place. We had about 150 people for the first game.

Despite the wind and the rain on Monday night, we crept over 200. By Wednesday night in game three the crowd was over 350 and on Sunday for the finals we welcomed about 700 people to Knights Court on Dundas Place. That does not happen without amazing teamwork and on short notice I cannot say enough about the good work of everyone involved in making this happen because this is what we built Dundas Place for. I also want to thank our London Knights fans who embraced Knights Court, who came downtown to support our team, to support downtown businesses before and after the game, whether they were stopping in for a burger or grabbing a pint after the game that support matters to those businesses well.

So I want to thank everybody who was involved and to the Knights players and the coaching staff I want to say hold your heads high. Hockey is a game of lucky bounces and inches sometimes and while the hockey gods did not smile on you in the final minute of the final, nonetheless you are champions of the Ontario Hockey League for a fifth straight time and Londoners are proud of you for that. Councillor Layman. 80 years ago this Thursday, June the 6, 14,000 young Canadians set across the English Channel with London’s own first hazards leading the way.

At the end of that day, D-Day, 1,096 fell with 381 paying the ultimate sacrifice on the beaches of Normandy. As years go by, fewer and fewer of our veterans of the greatest generation are still with us. It’s important that we keep their memories alive with recognitions such as this, remember to stay. And with stories passed on to our children, with monuments such as London’s own Holy Roller Tank holding a place of honour in Victoria Park, the last surviving tank that rolled onto those beaches 80 years ago.

To remind ourselves constantly that we enjoy the privilege of democracy, that we witness in these chambers because of the sacrifice of those brave men and women came before us. Thank you, Councillors. I have one final recognition. June 6 marks another day of significance for the City of London.

Three years ago, this Thursday is the day that we lost our London family in the horrific murders that occurred within our city, the worst mass murder in our city’s history. The trial that pursued was very difficult on the community and the appeal creates challenges that are raised to the surface once again. The work of different organisations, particularly the youth in the community to organise annual vigils throughout a very difficult time, has been inspiring. The YCCI, the Youth Coalition to Combat Islamophobia, has been leaders in not only organising respectful and powerful instances of remembrance, whether it be the vigil or the other activities that they’ve done, but also inspired a generation of young leaders to be active in their community, to stand up for what they believe in, and to be part of the change that needs to happen.

Now, those who are able to join on June 6, they will once again be a vigil at Hyde Park and South carriage road. I would encourage you to turn out. There are a number of members of council, though, who will not be able to be there, including myself, because we are travelling to Calgary for the Federation of Community Municipalities Conference. In working with YCCI and the organisers, and out of respect for the important significance, this has not only on our community here in London, but a national community heavily impacted by the events of that day.

Myself and the other Councillors going have arranged for a simultaneous vigil that will be occurring in Calgary that will include our delegation as well as representatives from mayors, from the big city mayor’s caucus at the same time. We will be able to view the live stream of the vigil happening here, but we’ll be participating in a simultaneous respectful ceremony, a moment of remembrance at the same time while in Calgary, allowing us to continue to have conversations across this country about the challenges of Islamophobia, and continue to discuss the plan that we put together as a council in the aftermath of that, a plan that was shaped by the community, heavily influenced by the discussions and what had occurred here, as well as the systemic and ongoing challenges that we face. London for all our plan to combat Islamophobia is something that has been presented to the FCMs, anti-racism committee, for as an example of things that municipalities can do to take real action, and we continue to implement the recommendations within that plan here in the city of London. So once again, it will be our opportunity to not only alongside of those here in our city who are remembering in person at the site to do so at the same time, but also to continue our advocacy and the important discussion across this country about combating Islamophobia in all its forms.

Thank you colleagues. So we have completed recognitions. We have no matters to review that we’re done in a confidential session to be considered in public. So we move on to the council and close session.

I’ll just outline just a small typo in the agenda. 4.3, which the security property actually relates to 4.1 of the CSC agenda, not 5.1. And for those who need to take a peek at the added agenda, there’s also an added item from today’s earlier special PEC meeting for our in-camera agenda as well. So we have four reasons on both the regular and added agenda to go into closed session for us.

I’ll look for someone to move a motion to do so. Councillor ramen seconded by Councillor Cuddy. Any discussion? Okay.

We’ll open that for voting. I’ll vote yes. Noted. Thank you.

Close in the vote. Motion carries 14 to 0. Okay. We’ll be moving to committee room five.

So I will I will see all of you there. Stop it. It should be fixed. You know how long we’ll work fast.

Separate away. Okay. Thank you. Please be seated.

That brings us to item five confirmation and signing at the minutes of previous meetings. We have the 10th meeting held May 14th. 2024. I look for a mover and a seconder of those minutes moved by Councillor Ferris seconded by Councillor Frank.

Any discussion on the minutes? Seeing none. We’ll open that for voting. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 14 to 0. Okay. Next we have communications and petitions. There are a number of items on both the regular and added agenda.

All of them can be referred to various other points within the agenda. There’s a motion drafted to do all of that at once. Councillor ramen is willing to move that. Deputy Mayor Lewis is willing to second.

Any discussion on doing that? Seeing none. We’ll open that for voting. Close in the vote.

Motion. Okay. Perfect. We have no motions to which notice was given.

So we’re on to reports. 8.1 is the seventh report of the Community Protective Services Committee. I’ll go to Councillor Ferris present that report. Mr.

Mayor, if I could, apologies. Excuse me. I do have a conflict on 0.7 of the report. Go ahead.

If you have a conflict, can you just just identify it again? We broke up a little bit there. Yeah. So I have a conflict on 2.7 as my wife operates her own child care business.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for identifying that. So I’ll turn it over to Councillor Ferris to present a motion or we can, we, I don’t know if you know about it, things are going to be pulled, but there’s at least one.

Okay. Maybe I’ll just ask first then. Is anybody looking for anything else to be dealt with separately aside from the item? Councillor van Mirberg and ask for separately.

Go ahead and craft a motion, Councillor Ferris. Thank you, Your Worship. Yeah. For the seventh report of the Community Protective Services Committee, I, we will be pulling item 7.

I’ll put items 1 through 6 and item 8, excluding 7 on the floor. Okay. So those are moved by the chair. I will look for any discussion on any of those items.

There is no discussion on any of those. Let’s move by the chair. We’ll open that package of items for voting. Those in the vote motion carries 14 to 0.

Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you. And that leaves item 7 and I’ll put on the floor. Okay.

Item 7 is on the floor. Any discussion on item 7? Okay. We’ll open that one for voting.

Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to 0 with one recuse. And that includes my report for the seventh report of the Community Protective Services. Great.

Great job. Thank you. We’re on to 8.2. The eighth report of Civic Works Committee, I’ll turn it over to Councillor Hoffman.

Yeah. Thank you, Your Worship. I will be putting items 1 to 14, pulling 15 and adding 16. Okay.

Does anybody else want anything separate? So it looks like just 1 to 14 for now, unless there’s something else people would like. I’ll let you craft a motion, Councillor. Sorry about that.

We received a delegation from the chair of ESACAC. A number of highlights were awarding the contract for the Springbank Dam and the roundabout at Oxford and Gideon, awarding consulting engineering for Hamilton Road, approved new traffic, signal lights and supported a motion for a report back on transit road network and active transportation planning for West London. Okay. Any other speakers on these items?

Okay. Seeing none, we’ll open those for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to 0.

I’d like to put number 15 on, which is the update and next steps for gasoline powered lawn and garden equipment. Okay. That item is on the floor from the chair. I look for discussion.

Councillor Frank. Thank you. Yes. I asked this item to be pulled as I was the one to add some amendments to the staff direction and I was hoping to pull it and specifically vote against my amendments so which are D-I-I-I-I-I-I, but leave the staff recommendations which were part A, B and C of this motion because I think that work can continue and it will be good to move forward on that item.

I did want to highlight as I included in my letter, I received a lot of communication. I imagine everyone did, including off council as well as various staff departments, but after listening to the feedback from residents from across London, it was very clear to me that the 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. suggested proposal for limiting gas equipment was too restrictive and therefore I’m hoping to pull it now so that we can continue with the work that staff are doing and perhaps seeing where that goes instead.

So formally just wanted to pull this, retract it and vote against it so we can move forward on this item. Okay. So I’ll just take that as a request to split the vote the way that you are articulated. There’s no there’s no retracting because it’s it’s a committee recommendation but we hear you saying that you’re no longer supportive of the D piece.

So we’ll make sure that we do at the very least unless the councilors want to divide it another way. We’ll do D, all components, then we’ll do A, B, C, plus the it being noted after but we’ll I’m just going to keep the speakers list to the whole the whole thing right now. Deputy Ray Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship.

So I’m going to add to that. I’m going to request you call all parts separately. I’m prepared to receive the staff report. I’m not prepared to support any other components of this motion.

I think we heard very loud and clear from our residents after the amendments were made exactly where they want to handle their lawn care. I do not think we need an awareness campaign. I think the public is more than aware after the last couple of weeks and don’t need. I don’t think we should be spending resources, staff time, direction, producing promotional materials to make citizens aware of their lawn care choices.

And with regard to, you know, continuing on emerging best practices, well, I think that that work is always happening. When we start talking about incentive programs and things like that, given the budget constraints we already have in the creation of a new working group, I don’t think we’re in any position to be offering incentives on things at this point in time. So I will be voting only for Part A to receive the staff report and be opposing everything else. Okay.

So it’s a further request to break it down. All parts separate. I’m going to suggest A and the EAP being noted to be attached together, because I’d like to be able to give people the opportunity to, if there were communications sent, the EAP being noted recognizes that. So now it’s going to be A, the EAP being noted, then B, then C, then all components of D as all separate votes.

All of D will be all together as one, though. Okay. So but we’re going to have speakers on the whole thing. So colleagues can comment and then we’ll just do the voting separate.

Any other speakers? Yes, Councillor Vameer-Burgen. You’re breaking up a little bit, Councillor, maybe mute and then unmute and see if that helps. Okay.

Can you hear me now? Much better. Okay. You have to remind us that voting aged Londoners are intelligent adults.

So let’s treat them as such. Councillor, I’ll just, I’ll just let you know. When you’re when you’re facing the camera, we hear you. When you turn to look downwards, we don’t.

Okay. Yeah. So this is a different. Go ahead.

Talk to remind ourselves that voting aged Londoners are intelligent adults. So let’s treat them as such. They are certainly capable of making their own decisions when it comes to lawnmowers and lawn equipment. Frankly, we have to resist the dark temptation to turn this council into a Politburo of groupthink and indoctrination.

I will not support any part of this motion. Thank you, Mayor. Councillor, I would just ask that you not use the language that you use there. I think you could, you should retract the groupthink.

I don’t think anybody here is groupthinking. We’re all capable of making our own decisions. And I think we do that on a regular basis, even the divided votes. So I would ask you to retract that.

And you’re, I think we hear your other comments pretty clearly. With respect, no, that’s my opinion. I want to share that opinion. You know, we’re talking here about trying to indoctrinate a certain point of view.

to the people of London. Okay, Councillor, Mayor, I have a point of privilege to deal with now. So you’re going to have to stop speaking until I deal with the point of privilege. Councillor ramen.

Thank you. And through you, I guess my indoctrination isn’t working since I’m speaking against what you’re saying. But I think the Councillor owes us an apology for that. On the point of personal privilege, I have to say I agree with the Councillor.

To Councillor. Mayor Bergen, I’m going to ask you to to retract the term indoctrination. Nobody is doing indoctrination here. That is not how council operates.

And you can express your very clear opinion. But we’re going to do so respectfully and with language that does not make significant assumptions about other Councillors and and what influences their votes. So I would ask for you to retract that. And if you choose to, you can rephrase it, but you need to retract the term indoctrination.

Okay, so once again, to my knowledge, I have not used any unparliamentary language. I have not singled out any individuals. I’m calling this a temptation. It’s a temptation to go towards that that that area.

And so that was clearly spelled out in my words. And so I will not retract because we do have freedom of speech within our limits. Yes, Councillor, and I’m asking you to retract the way you said it the first time the way you said it when you said it was a temptation to go down a path that is very different from outright saying it, which is what here’s what I said. Frankly, we have to resist the dark temptation.

I used the word temptation to turn this council into a polybural of groupthink and indoctrination. That’s it. So on the point of personal privilege, which is still active, although I do not agree with the, I will say it this way, may not be the approach that I or perhaps other members of council would take in the phrasing of language. But I do think the word temptation changes the context of the council’s comments, your respective of what you feel about them.

So I’m going to deem that adjusted language is dealing with the point of personal privilege and the point of personal privilege is dispensed with. And you can challenge the decision of the chair on that if you like, but we’ll leave it at that. And if the chair is challenged, I can outline the next steps. But this would be the point if you want to do that.

Otherwise, I’m going to deem this. I have another point of privilege. Point of privilege on this. Okay, well, you need to deal with this one is dealt with.

So unless you’re challenging the chair, this one’s going to be dealt with. So this is your time to do so. And if you’re going to call another point of privilege on the exact same thing, it’s better to just deal with challenging my decision than doing a second one. If it’s completely unrelated point of personal privilege, then I can entertain that.

I just want to be clear. I don’t want you to lose your opportunity to challenge my decision on that. It’s not specifically related in terms of the word that you’re calling out. I take issue with being referred to as the polyburo.

I think it’s out of line. I think that language isn’t appropriate. This isn’t the cold war. This isn’t the committee of on London activities.

And I think it’s disparaging to council as a whole to use that language. Okay, I had to look up the definition of that to deal with your point of personal privilege. So although based on the definition I looked up, I would say it’s an unfortunate approach for a councilor to take. I don’t believe it deems warranting the level of point of personal privilege based on the based on the language that came before that about moving down that path.

So it’s the same as I kind of ruled before on a different part of the language that I’m going to deem it as dealt with. And generally caution colleagues to try to use a better language even on the right side of the line. So you can challenge me if you’d like Councilor. I’m going to challenge you because I’m quite tired of allowing it.

Okay, so here’s what’s going to happen colleagues. I’ve ruled the point of personal privilege to be dealt with. The councilor disagrees with that as challenging my decision that it has been dispensed with. So we will move to a vote on challenging the chair.

If it will be the decision of the chair to be uphold. So if you agree with me that the point of personal privilege is dealt with, you can vote in the affirmative. If you disagree that it’s dealt with, then you vote in the negative. If it is not dealt with, then I will have to proceed to next steps on addressing a point of personal privilege by, well, I’ll outline those at the time.

But is that a question? Go ahead. Sorry, thank you. Just realizing many of this council, we’re going to be aware of what next steps is.

Sure, I will outline it. So it’s usually outline with that. Yes, and I’m going to take some leeway as chair to explain to colleagues the path that we’re on so that you understand where we’re headed because this has only happened once before when I’m on council. If council votes to say that my decision stands is dealt with, we’re done.

If council votes to say that my decision of the point of personal privilege is not dealt with, then I will ask the councilor to retract that specific language. It will be up to them to decide to or not. If they do, then I get another chance to deem it dealt with based on the new information. If the councilor refuses, then I move to the disorderly conduct section of the code of conduct and we’ll have a vote on whether or not to remove the councilor from the meeting for the remainder of the meeting for disrupting council based on not retracting a point or addressing a point of personal privilege.

So, but we’re on step one of all that right now. And many of those things are not debatable, just so you know, so we just kind of move through the process of decision-making. So, Councilor Vermeer, I know you have your hand up, but I actually have to deal with the challenge of the chair first before we go to anything else because that has been formally done. So, the vote that was before us is that the decision of the chair, the ruling of the chair, shall be sustained.

So, I’ve ruled that the point of personal privilege is dealt with. So, if you agree with that, you vote yes. If you disagree with that, you vote no. Yeah, this is not debatable, so we’re just going to put that motion up.

Opposing the vote is 8 to 6, the ruling of the chair is sustained. Okay, so the point of privilege is dealt with. In a debate on this, Councilor Vermeer Vergan still has the floor on this debate, and I’m still timing you. So, Councilor Vermeer Vergan.

Thank you, Mayor. I’m finished. Thanks very much. Other speakers on this motion, which is the whole thing, but we’re going to divide the votes up into pieces, just for colleagues to remember where we are.

Oh, yes, go ahead. I had Councilor Raman, sorry, and then Councilor Trossa. Thank you, and through you, although I was at Civic Works, yes, Civic Works’ discussion, I just wanted to double-check with staff if they could share a little bit more about C, who the funding submission to FCM would benefit. My, I guess, maybe I had a different understanding of this.

Go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. The intent of C is to work with other municipalities in Ontario to provide an application to FCM for one of their programs related to climate change and environment to help develop some industry or municipal-wide standards and expectations. There’s no decision in making it come out of C.

Any decisions that comes out of that joint research project would come back to the appropriate committee for a decision by Council in advance of any changes to our Bileza policies. Go ahead, Councilor Raman. Thank you, and through you. So where I’m struggling to understand our direction here on this matter is around what we’re doing with our own fleet, because I know that we did have some ambitious target set out on our own fleet, and then through the multi-year budgeting process, some of those were not funded.

So if part C is a multi-municipality project strategy for our own fleet and usage, then yes, I’d support it. But if it’s about looking at more on the consumer side, I would have a different opinion on that. Because we’re just looking for clarification on what it applies to. Madam Chair, the intent would be to tackle both things.

So it’d be consumer-side for residential use. It’d be consumer-side for long-care company and providers, as well as for our own fleet. So the intent is to do a multi-pronged approach. It would be challenging for us to not, for example, have the same standards we would expect of ourselves for contractors working for us.

All right, Councilor Trossam. Thank you very much. With part D1 and 2 removed or voted down, I don’t think there’s been any opposition submitted on the other items. And to be very, very specific, and I’d like to stand corrected if I’m wrong, I don’t think the question of designing and implementing an awareness campaign was at all controversial, at all controversial.

I don’t think the idea of pursuing this multi-municipality project with our partners and other jurisdictions, so we’re going through the same issues that we’re going through, was at all controversial. As a matter of fact, we received many, many submissions saying this is really something that’s important for you to be looking at. And those submissions were very well thought out. And some of those submissions went into great detail, attaching scientific bibliographies, talking about some of the health implications of emissions, moving around particles, and the waste pollution.

Short of, well short of having a public participation meeting with the bible on the table, these are very preliminary educational functions, as is D3, having our advisory committees take a look at it. So I think while it’s true that there was quite a bit of pushback to a very, very specific measure looking towards the bible, I don’t think there was pushback for all, or certainly not significant, with respect to these other investigative educational functions. And I think it would be a real shame if we see that these other jurisdictions in Ontario are moving ahead with this multi-municipality project. And we’re told here we can’t do it.

So I want to at least give the staff benefit of being able to follow through on what was in the report. So I think certainly A, B, C, and clause three about advisory committees, I think should all stay on the table, and would help move this discussion forward. Not right away, there’s no call to do this within a certain amount of time. But I think this is a good discussion for the community to have, because we have been hearing loud and clear from many residents that they want this issue addressed, which is not to say exactly how it’s going to be addressed.

Those details will come later, but to just cut this short and say we can’t submit this, we can’t work on an awareness campaign, I think it’s a little bit of overkill. So I would urge Councillors to support A, A, B, C, and part three of D. Thank you very much. Okay, we’ll make sure that that’s a possible voting option.

I have Councillor McAllister next. Thank you and through the chair. I just wanted to take this opportunity to acknowledge Councillor Frank. I think it takes a lot of courage to step on a political land mine, such as this.

Clearly you struck a nerve with Londoners in terms of the lawn care issue. But I do applaud you in terms of your efforts to acknowledge it, correct it. I do think that we’re in acknowledgement. And I do just want to remind my colleagues that we’re going to disagree on issues, but I would say please do so respectfully.

Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Hopkins. Yes, Your Worship, just before I make my comments, I would like to go through you to staff just to follow up on Councillor Tussaud’s question around advisory groups and getting information.

And if A and A, B and C are supported, would that normally go through the advisory groups to get information back to us? Go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. Generally speaking, when we have policy changes that we’re proposing related to our own equipment or to how we manage within the city and the community more broadly, we would take those to the relevant advisory groups.

We also often end up on advisory group agendas because we’ve been requested to appear. We have been requested to appear on some of the advisory groups related to this matter in the past. We’ve got some pending requests that we anticipate in the future that we have said that we would wait obviously pending the direction from council. So I don’t know that we’d be precluded from speaking to the advisory groups if we were to proceed with A, B and C without D.

Your Worship and through you to staff, I would definitely encourage you if this is passed to do so. I would like to make a couple comments. First of all, I want to thank staff for their presentation at Civic Works and for the work that they’ve done on this. This has been an ongoing issue.

I know it’s been an ongoing issue in the war that I represent with gas powered equipment. I applaud them for doing the extra work and the education piece and working alongside other municipalities as well as stakeholders in the community. I think that’s a really important part as well as opportunities to take advantage of some funding. I do want to thank Councillor Frank as well for her courage.

I think there’s no other word to say that the motion I was disappointed that it is being withdrawn. I know it wasn’t perfect. I think we do have a process. Public participation.

How can we improve that motion? Would have been a discussion that should have happened. What ended up happened was a lot of loud noises coming at us. Really not understanding even what that motion meant.

So I do want to thank her for bringing it forward in a respectful and professional way. I would encourage this council to support the work that staff has been doing up to date and the work that is needed in the education piece going forward. So supporting A, B and C is what I would encourage this council to do. Thank you.

Other speakers to this who haven’t spoken yet. Just going to organize the vote with the clerks and then where the debate will be over because no one else is on the speaker’s list and we’ll do a series of votes on all components of this based on what everybody was asking for. Okay. I’m going to base on the advice of the clerks.

I know I said I would divide it a certain way. I hear how Councillor spoke. My opinion of what the committee put before us is that in D and given the answers from our staff as well. D one and two, the circulate the report in three related to the report back in DI.

It’s part of D. Now if your concern is that if you’re concerned is that if we do see that that means you can’t circulate that to advisory committees, our WCD manager just indicated that’s not the case. So that can still happen. So I’m going to keep D altogether because D three is not successful.

It does not preclude C being circulated to advisory committees. Should that be the case that it passes? Okay. So that way we just keep it tight and we’re not having an odds.

We might we might be left with a piece that makes no sense and I don’t I want to try to avoid that given the committee’s recommendations. So that means we’ll do all of D and then we’ll do A and then B and then C is how we’ll vote. Okay. So I’m just going to ask Councillor Hopkins regardless of which way you’re voting on these.

Maybe you could just move them all as I go through them. That way I don’t have to ask for other speakers since I think I sounded like you were supportive of most of it. Okay. All right.

Okay. So we’re going to put D on the floor first. Sure. Make a point of order.

In light of the fact that D talks about the the work of the community and protective services committee. I’m wondering if that becomes moot too because the community and protective services committee is well able to control their future agendas if they if they if they need to do that. So I now I would I would agree that three under D is not necessarily in light of what the deputy city manager said. So I think I think that D might even be ruled beyond.

I don’t know. I just want to try to make this a little simpler and I think D is not necessary including part three which I previously thought was but in light of what she said it’s not. I don’t know if that last sentence made any sense. Yeah.

So we’re we’re in alignment on D three. I just I disagree. The committee has passed a recommendation on D. It’s altogether doesn’t matter what committee things come to one committee to get reported back to another committee.

This is a specific direction that this committee has asked for council to consider. It’s before council. Council can send things to any committee. So the rest of it stays together and we vote on it.

So that’s that’s dealing with the point of order. You’ve already spoken. So this better be a point of order. Yes.

It is a point of order. So I am putting D on the floor. Oh, okay. Well, yes.

You’re putting D on the floor. Okay. So D is on the floor. All of D all together.

Okay. We’re going to open that for voting. Sorry. Are we doing D first?

Okay, closing the vote. Motion fails 0 to 14. We’d like to now put A on the floor. Okay.

A is on the floor. We’ve already had a discussion on this. So I’ll open A for voting. And just so you know, it has the being noted clause attached to it too.

Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to 1. The worship. I’d like to put B, C together.

Would that work or do you want it split up? No, I was asked to have it split. So I’ll put B on the floor. So you put B on?

Right. So B, B will open for voting now. Closing the vote. Motion fails 5 to 9.

Go ahead, Councillor. And I’d like to put C on the floor. We’ll open C for voting. Closing the vote.

Motion fails on a tie 7 to 7. So you have one more item in your report. That number 16? Yes, that’s correct.

I’ll put number 16 on the floor, which is the Transit Road Network and Active Transportation Planning for West London. Yes. So that’s on the floor. I’ll look for speakers.

Yes, speaker? Okay. Deputy Mary Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship.

So I did not ask to have this pulled, but I will not be supporting it. And I want to share my reasons why. I appreciate that the Councillor who brought it forward. I may have good intentions, but in my opinion, this is actually not doing anything that is not already being done by other motions, including the work that staff are doing on the master mobility plan, which is referenced in this motion, but also with respect to direction for looking to options for higher order transit in the future for the West of London.

That is already a direction provided by Council. That was issued actually in the last term of Council by Your Worship, Councillor Hopkins, Councillor Layman, and former Councillor Squire at the time, I believe Councillor Hopkins is shaking no. So I know that three of you signed, and I think that one other spoke strongly in support of it to look at alternate routes for that. I don’t believe that asking our staff to pull apart the work that’s happening on the master mobility plan and do very site specific or area specific.

What I’m going to call secondary plans, although that’s not really what we’re talking about here, but what I’m going to call maybe a mini plan within the master mobility plan is something that I want to direct staff to take time to do. I want them to finish the master mobility plan. And I think when we have clauses that say consider ongoing input from residents and businesses, I actually personally think that that’s kind of, I personally take offense to that because I think that that’s ongoing process that we do all the time. I don’t think that that language is necessary or even really appropriate to be in a motion.

At every planning committee meeting on developments, we have public participation meetings on things. There have been multiple public engagements on the master mobility plan, including here in chambers and out in the public at large. So to say that or to imply, which is how I take this, although I recognize that this is my personal view, not necessarily the intent of counselors, but to imply that that is not being done already, doesn’t sit well with me. And I’m just not going to continue to support motions that are asking staff to undertake work that they’re already undertaking.

So that’s why I will not be supporting this. Councillor Lehman. Back in September of 2021, the previous council directed staff to deliver a multi mobility plan. And at that time, I added a motion to that.

And I’m going to read it just because I want to ask a specific question to that. Civic administration be directed to include specific actions to address traffic congestion areas on Wonderland Road and the development of the future mobility master plan. And it being noted that a corridor will be evaluated as part of the upcoming plan with a focus on transit, high occupancy vehicle use, and active transportation. So through you, Chair, to staff, does that is that enough direction for you to deliver?

Well, I think what the intent of this particular motion that we’re discussing. Go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. Certainly that motion, along with the intended scope of the mobility master plan would address A, C, and D.

B is related to a much more granular level of transportation planning that is not a master planning level piece of work. And we’ll be referred to the transportation impact assessment for the pending development for the area. Thank you, other speakers. Councillor ramen.

Thank you and through you. So I’ll be supporting the motion as it was discussed as planning applications were coming forward. And residents were sharing concerns. One of the challenges that I think we need to see as a potential barrier for participation can be that someone provides their opinion at one committee and that they perhaps perceive that that information is making it to staff and therefore their input is now recorded in, let’s say, the master mobility plan.

But in the case of what we kept hearing repeatedly at planning during some of these applications, what we were hearing was I don’t support this project. And part of the reason I don’t support it is because of transit and transportation related concerns. But that information would not make its way to the MMP unless the individual then went and shared that information individually. So I think that there is a bit of a disconnect.

Yes, I know staff are there and they’re hearing part of that. But the volume of that response, I don’t believe is being effectively captured because of a difference of where it sits within a committee. So I understand that that’s where this discussion came from. Residents are concerned.

They’re absolutely concerned. Business owners are concerned. We are hearing those concerns. So we’re trying to find a mechanism so that residents and business owners feel as though they’ve been heard.

And I don’t think that because we passed a motion perhaps the last term of council to say that this term of council hears you is a bad thing. I think it actually says we hear you and we understand that because of the increased work that we’re doing around high density development in these corridors we realize that the strategy that maybe we had in 2021 that we also need to bolster that strategy even further. People are expecting us to respond accordingly based on the developments that are coming. One of the things that I added to the discussion is the it being noted clause.

And I see this is quite different and something that needs to be included. I do think that it’s important that we highlight the fact that funds that we’re going to be used for projects in the north and the west were reprioritized because when we go to make decisions later on I think it’s important that we reflect on how we’ve spent dollars that were earmarked elsewhere because right now they’re having impacts. And so I do think that’s important that we continue this conversation. I think this is an opportunity to do so.

I thank Councillor Trostoff for bringing this forward. Other speakers. Oh, Councillor Maymiever can actually have you on the list. Thank you, Mayor.

I think we have to admit to ourselves. I mean, we’re a city approaching 500,000 people half a million. Wonderland Road is incredibly important to our local economy and the way we get around and the way bids and services move. We have to admit to ourselves that we’re at the point where the only real relief is going to come with road widening, the widening of Wonderland.

And that was always the policy for I believe at least a couple of decades for the city of London. As late as the last council, that was the go ahead. The DCs were set aside. It was all set to go.

In the last term of council, we even started having community meetings about the road widening of Wonderland from Southdale to Sarnia Road. And that has been set aside with, in my view, a wrongheaded policy. But it’s one that’s going to inevitably have to be reactivated because that in the final analysis will be the only true relief. Thanks, Mayor.

Other speakers. Councillor Ferra, go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. Speaking to this motion, I am very appreciative that I saw this come to civic works and I will be supporting it.

It would be motions like this, especially when we start talking about congestion in the area and those developments as Councillor Ramen spoke to in the area that would have me carry the needle over for me to approve certain applications that we see coming forward. We do see that there’s another item that’s going to be coming. I’m not going to speak to it specifically, but that item basically says, you know, that it’s a rapid transit corridor. And as we all know, we don’t have that high order transit in the area.

So it would be something like this that would make sense for me to approve applications that I’d like to see, you know, approved going forward. So I will be supportive of this. I think this makes a complete sense. And it does, as far as I see, it alleviates the concerns with congestion and the traffic that we will see as we start seeing more intensification.

So I do hope that we can support this this motion. This is something that the city needs, especially in this area. Councillor Frank. Thank you.

There you go. Thank you. I’ll be supporting this motion because I think, again, staff are working on this, but this provides further clarity. And as we know, this area continues to be congested, very congested and heavily trafficked.

I do think we need to avoid the temptation to continue with the status quo, car brain solutions, like ideas like road widening at Wonderland, and look at other options available to us through mechanisms like this and the master mobility plan. The speakers. That’s our choice. Thank you very much.

Quite frankly, I’m a little surprised through the chair that this is so controversial because when I tried raising these exact issues with respect to a particular development application, at PEC as a guest, I was told, you know, you really should take that over to Civic Works and let them do a broader policy study, which I took that advice very seriously. And that’s exactly what I did here. And what may have been said in 2019, what might have been said or not said five years ago, we’ve got a lot of additional applications coming through. They’re not done.

We’re going to be seeing a lot more in this area. And we’re going to be seeing a lot more congestion in this area. And yes, talking about whether a particular application is done in adequate traffic study is something that’s on the table. We’re going to have that discussion later today.

But I do think that this is a forward thinking motion. And I was very, very careful when I chose the words to put in here. And I was very happy that Councillor ramen worked with me on this. There was never ever any discussion about the concept of filtered permeability.

None. There was never any discussion about what it means to be building new streets that are going to have the fact of cut through traffic. And, you know, again, I was told, well, if you have a problem with the need for filtered permeability at the Beaverbrook and at the Westfield Gates, you can’t put that on this particular developer. You’ve got to raise that separately as a policy issue.

And Civic Works is the place to do it. Civic Works did it. So I think it’s a stretch to say, this is a redundant motion because we’ve dealt with all these things before. We don’t have an area plan for this area.

And I specifically asked this question at the PEC meeting. And I was told, instead, can correct me if I’m wrong. I don’t want to misspeak. But after the east prong and the south prong and the central prong of the BRT went through, the planning attention, quite rightly, was redirected to those projects and not towards the north prong or the west prong.

So I really think it’s a distortion to say there’s really nothing in this motion that is new. There’s a lot in here that’s new. And the fact that it’s coming from Civic Works and that we’re tying it, we’re tying it to the mobility master plan. We’re tying it to other potential planning exercises.

I think it’s good policy. And I would certainly hope that my colleagues will support this motion. Thank you very much. Other speakers?

Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And I want to thank the Councillor for bringing in this motion. I too recall being at the PEC meeting and being told that this is where this motion should go to Civic Works Committee.

I know PEC, many of the zoning applications for intensification, not only in this area, are all around how do we move. And we need to align our committees and share that information, especially at a time when we’re going through the mobility master plan. I understand there aren’t any concerns with this motion. It really validates what we, as Councillors, and I in particular in Ward 9, which is West of West and how we develop and intensify and how we move around is a very important conversation in the community.

That’s what this motion is representing, the community and their thoughts and how, when we need to develop, how do we move around? So, I would encourage every Councillor to support this, I think, very important motion. Okay, any other speakers? Okay, go ahead, Councillor Peruzza.

Thank you, Chair. I will be very brief. I will be supporting this motion as I was during our committee. I do believe that this motion is more detailed and more proactive, and we all know this is a very challenging and will be a very challenging area.

So, therefore, I will be supporting it. Thank you. I’ll turn the chair over to Deputy Mayor Lewis. I have myself on the list, and I will recognize Mayor Morgan.

So, okay, so a lot of colleagues spoke on this. I just want to add my own context to it, because I think there’s a lot of pieces of this that’s being added in that directly relates to the motion, but also other discussions at other committees and previous decisions of Council. So, just to pull it all together, I certainly agree with those colleagues who feel like a number of components of this motion are duplicative with some previous directions. I do, though, recognize that new members of Council will want to add their own directions and input and feedback within the direction that we’re going.

On the piece of a filter permeability, I’m not convinced that that’s the right way to go. I’m not convinced that it should have been so prescriptive. There are many options there, but I’m not adverse to award Councillor having concerns about the traffic flows in their ward. I mean, I’ve done the exact same thing when I was a ward Councillor in multiple parts of the ward over the course of time, and I think getting information about how to address concerns or whether they’re justified or not yet, because nothing has been built or happened, is a fair responsibility of a ward Councillor.

So, you know, for me, there’s a lot of this, even though it’s duplicative, that I probably can just get behind supporting and us moving to the next step. But there are a few context pieces that I want to raise. I know the it being noted clause was brought up, and I don’t disagree that that’s the case. I will say it’s also been brought up that there have been previous directions integrated into the mass mobility plan that basically recognize that.

And on the funding that we received from the federal government, we know that there were certain routes within the original plan that were very weak with a very low cost benefit ratio. And that was before we saw all of the cost appreciation that happened, which all of us were aware of because of the budget amendment that we had to make in the in the budget to support that. And we know that we’re on the hook. We’re on the hook for those because of the previous agreements.

Now, there is a discussion happening with the federal government about saying, listen, this with this cost appreciation, we have to think about it this a different way. So, my concern would have been, I’m kind of glad we didn’t lock ourselves in to a previous deal with the federal government, where we would have been on the hook for all of that cost appreciation in the other routes. I have comfort in knowing that the permanent transit funding, which comes online in 2026 and will take applications likely in 2025, is available in alignment with the end of the mass mobility plan process. Now, there are some parameters around that the federal government is attaching that we have to have discussions with as municipalities.

But we’re probably in not a bad position to be able to pitch transit solutions for the West and the North, although this is mainly geared around the West. At a time when we can talk about ensuring that we get some of the cost appreciations that have occurred in the last summer years covered for those options with the new permanent transit funding. And so, I think I recognize all the components of this motion. I just want to say, I actually think we’re in not a bad position as a municipality, given the previous directions, given the commitment of this council.

What I don’t hear is anybody saying that we don’t need to address transit in fast-growing areas of the city. I think we’re all in alignment on that. We may have differences of opinion on which parts of the motion we support because of previous directions. So, for me, I think this has been a long debate.

I think regardless of how the components go on this, aside from the suggestion that Councilor Frosal made, I think much of this work is going to happen. And for me, I’m going to err on the side of giving my new colleagues some support and allowing them to express their support for some previous decisions we made. And I will support the motion given the context that I’ve added today from the chair. Thank you, Mayor Morgan.

I will return the chair to you. I have no one else on the speakers list at this time. I have no one else on the speakers list at this time either. So, with that, I think this is all together.

No one’s asked for it to be separated. So, all right, we’re going to open the whole thing for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 10 to 4.

And that is my report. Okay, thank you. That concludes the report. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins.

We have the 10th report of SPPC. We’ll turn it over to Deputy Mayor Lewis to present that report. Thank you, Your Worship. I am going to deal with item 7.

That’s the 10th report of the governance working group separately. I’ll just advise colleagues that with respect to that, there is just an addition to the job description committee. And with respect to the other item that I’m going to be pulling is the appointment to the London Community Advisory Committees. As colleagues will recall, we had one individual who was appointed to both to two committees.

Outreach was done by the clerk, so I’ll advise colleagues on that when we get to that item. So, those are the two items. Item 14 and item 7 that I’m aware of that need to be dealt with separately. Look now to see if colleagues want anything else pulled to be dealt with separately.

With colleagues like anything else dealt with separately. See any? So, you can craft a motion. Then, Your Worship, I am prepared to move items 1 through 6 inclusive and 8 through 13 inclusive as well as item 15.

Okay, so we have basically everything on the floor with the exception of 7 and 14. I’ll look for any comments on any of those items that colleagues would like to make. Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to 0.

Thank you, Your Worship. I will now move to item 7, which is the 10th report of the Governance Working Group. As was indicated in my preamble, at the Governance Working Group, there was actually an indication from Councillor Cutty that he had an interest in serving on the job description subcommittee as well. That was not captured in the SPPC direction.

So, I’ve had a request to pull this one so that we could amend item 7, clause 4.3 of the 10th report of the Governance Working Group. That is clause AII, which considers the appointments to the job description subcommittee. Councillors, Cribble, Hopkins and Ramen have indicated interest in writing. Councillor Ramen, to serve as the chair, I would like to amend that to include Councillor Cutty’s inclusion in this committee as well.

And then I’m prepared to move that up, but I think because it’s amendment, I may need a seconder. Right. So, because it’s a committee recommendation, you’ll have to move with the committee passed, and then subsequently you can move the amendment, which I do need a seconder for the amendment. I see Councillor Ramen willing to second, which means we have the committee recommendation on the floor, but then we’ve amended it.

So, we’re actually just speaking to the amendment now. I don’t know if you have any further words on the amendment. I will not share any further words on the amendment. It’s Councillor Cutty.

So, if he was just to speak to his involvement, I’ll leave that to him. It’s up to him to put his hand up, if he’d like, which he did. So, go ahead. Chair, I’m fine.

Thank you. And I’d be delighted to serve on the committee under the chair of Chair Ramen. Thank you. Okay.

Any other speakers to the amendment, which is to add Councillor Cutty to the recommendation? Okay. Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote.

Motion carries 14 to 0. You need a as amended motion and then… Yes. So, I’ll now move as amended.

I need a seconder for the as amended. Councillor Hopkins willing to second. Okay. Debate on the as amended motion, which now includes a piece of a Councillor Cutty’s appointment as well.

Okay. Seeing none, we’ll open the as amended motion. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 14 to 0.

Go ahead, Chair. Thank you. Worship, and moving on to item 14. This is the consideration of appointments to the London community advisory committees.

If you’ll allow a little preamble, I will inform colleagues that Leah Thomas Gray was contacted by the clerks. She’s indicated her preference is to serve on the Integrated Transportation Committee advisory committee and actually would be concerned about being on to and the workload that that would require. So, she’s indicated her preference is to withdraw from the diversity inclusion and anti-oppression advisory committee. I want to take this opportunity to also share with colleagues that in the runoff voting, Kate Warmington, who was on the ballot.

She was the last individual to drop off the ballot by a difference of one vote. And so, there was actually a four vote difference between her and the next closest candidate on that ballot. So, I’m prepared to move the committee recommendation, and then I’m going to put an amendment on the floor that the appointment of the diversity inclusion, anti-oppression advisory committee be amended to remove Leah Thomas Gray and replace her with Kate Warmington. Okay.

So, a order of operations, you as presenting the committee report has put the committee report on the floor, removing an amendment as you just described, but I need a seconder for the amendment. Councillor Hopkins. Okay. There’s a seconder for the amendment.

Okay. Debate on the amendment then, which is the removal of the individual who’s serving on another committee and has indicated that in the proposal to take the next highest vote getter. Okay. I don’t see any debate on that, so we’ll open the amendment for voting.

Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 14-0. Moving the as amended. Okay.

Seconder for the as amended. Councillor Pribble. Any discussion for the as amended motion, which is now all the committee appointments? Okay.

Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Was in the vote. Motion carries 14-0. And that your worship will conclude the 10th report of the strategic priorities and policy committee.

Great. Thank you. That brings us to the eighth report of the planning and environment committee. I’ll turn it over to Chair Layman.

Thank you. Your worship, I have requests to pull number eight, number nine, and number 11. Anybody like any of those separate besides 8, 9, and 11? Let me make a motion, Councillor.

So I’ll move items one through seven and number 10 and 12. Okay. Well, we pull that motion up. I’m going to look for any speakers to those items.

Now we’re doing everything but they accept 8, 9, and 11, everything else. Okay. No speakers on the rest of it, which is moved. We’ll just give a second to just get that motion.

Okay. We’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 14-0.

Okay. Go ahead, Chair. I’ll put number eight regarding 743 Wellington Road on the floor. Okay.

Let’s put on the floor by the chair. Any discussion on that? Seeing none, we’re going to open item eight for voting. Opposed in the vote.

Motion carries 11-3. Thank you. I’ll put number nine regarding 530 Oxford Street West on the floor. Any discussion on this item?

Go ahead, Councillor Ferra. Thanks, Your Worship. So for this one, I traditionally was against it, but after we have approved the other motion and I do see that as in good faith, it makes more sense for me to carry me over on this on this application. So I will be changing my vote and I will, my original position, and I will be voting in favor for this one.

Anybody else? Councillor Troso. To the chair, I was planning on voting against this and I was also prepared to use my entire five minutes to explain why. I guess she can refer back to a lot of the things that I said with respect to 735 Wonderland to explain why I can’t support this.

And unlike the word, Councillor, who I quite understand what you’re saying. And I hope in the long run, this deals with the problem. For me, there are just too many immediate problems with this particular application that I cannot bring myself in good conscience to vote for it and explain to people and explain to myself how I’ve been consistent. I don’t think there’s been an adequate traffic study.

I certainly don’t think that there’s been an adequate consideration of what’s going on along the Oxford and Wonderland corridor. The comments that I made with respect to 735 Wonderland urged that in approving these development applications, we can take, we can depart from just looking at the borders of the property. And we can take a broader view in terms of how this fits in with other development applications. And for that reason, especially given the enormity of the size of this, this is much bigger.

This one is much bigger than even 735 Wonderland. So I feel in order to be true to some of the things that I’ve been saying all along and consistent, I’m going to vote no on this. And I may be the only one. That’s how I feel.

And that’s what I’m going to do. So thank you very much. Other speakers to this item. Okay.

Seeing none, we’ll open it for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 13 to 1. My chair. Thank you.

I’ll put number 11 regarding 193 to 199 College Avenue on the floor. Okay. This item’s on the floor. I look for speakers.

Seeing go ahead, Councillor Troasai. I’m going to give some of my other council colleagues the benefit to speak to this because I spoke to this at PEC and I have not changed my position. Whereas the less vote, I see how I could have shifted on that one. I’m really adamant on this one.

And really, in my view, what we’re talking about here is the future and the integrity of the near campus neighborhood regulations. Now, I’m not going to go through all of the background information because everybody is well aware of what’s at stake here. This is also pending at the tribunal. And we also have had the benefit of a very, very detailed and in my opinion extensive and in my opinion very well thought out staff report.

And the staff report recommended against this project. And it did so on three important grounds. First, that it’s not consistent with the official plan. Second, that is not consistent with the zoning by-law.

And third, it’s not consistent with the near campus neighborhood regulations. And the near campus regulations are something that this council has been giving quite a bit of thought to lately. So I’d like to back up a little bit. When London was asked by the federal government to increase the as of right number of units that could be had on a property from three, which was mandated by the province to four, this council, and correct me if I’m wrong, but my recollection was that was a 15 to nothing belt.

Everybody agreed with it. I did ask the question before voting on it to make sure that this would not preclude a review of the near campus neighborhood provisions. And I was told that that would happen. And indeed that did happen.

And what happened next was there was a very detailed process of looking at the new near campus neighborhood provisions. And the neighborhood associations worked very closely together. And with the staff to come up with what was, I think Harold did, has a very reasonable compromise. Not as strong as the old near campus neighborhood provisions were, but enough enough in there to satisfy the residents of the areas that they should, that they could support it.

And that too passed by a vote of 15 to nothing. Now, certainly under these regulations, one and under the four unit rule that this council has approved, one would have as a matter of right, subject to doing the, you know, the measurements and looking at the floor area ratio. One would have as a matter of right the ability to build four units on a property. And for each property we’ve got here, there’s no question that four units could be, could be built.

This council could even entertain going above that a little bit. However, however, I think for this council to turn our backs on a very, very well thought out staff recommendation and to turn our backs on what we said we were going to do about the near campus neighborhood. And remember, this project is not on Richmond Street. It’s not the next house in from Richmond Street.

It’s in the middle of the block. There is no question that this project, whatever you want to say about the official plan and the zoning by law, is clearly not contemplated by the near campus neighborhood regulations. And I, and I, and I think I called on people in my neighborhood and throughout Old North to recognize that the old days of single family, single occupancy, dwelling on one property are coming to a close and that we are under increasing encouragement from the the provincial government, 30 seconds free, and the federal government for to, you know, to up that. But I think for us to turn our back when everything we’ve been through with the near campus neighborhood really flies in the face of reasonableness and it’s going to lead people not just in this neighborhood but throughout Old North and throughout other neighborhoods that don’t even have the same level of protections as we do in the near campus neighborhood wondering what this council is doing.

So I would urge you to reject this application and go back to the staff recommendation. It was very sound. Time’s up, Councillor. Thank you.

Other speakers on this matter? Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. So I moved this recommendation at committee and I stand by that.

You know, we’ve heard and we’ve seen a few letters come in from the neighborhood about fit with the neighborhood character and yet right across the street from this property is an eight-story building. At the end of the street, 12-story, behind a four-story and I know the residents will say oh it’s three and a half. It’s four stories of residential units whether one is partially below grade or not. It’s still four stories of residential in terms of density.

This is absolutely consistent with the existing conditions in the neighborhood. This is also the result of a non-decision from councils, multiple councils by the way because this precludes even the previous term of council. It goes back that far. Which is why it’s before the OLT because nobody wanted to make a decision on this.

It’s time to make a decision. The OLT is going to do that and what we are doing today is endorsing a position with the OLT that says we would be supportive of this. When we talk about all of these policies and factors, the London plan, this actually has references to the 1989 official plan in it which is no longer in force and effect. So when we look at all of these things, we also have to be flexible and recognize the changing circumstances of the world we live in today in which we have a housing crisis and it’s not just an affordability crisis.

It is an affordability crisis but it is also an inventory crisis and when we look at what the existing conditions are in the neighborhood, eight stories across the street, 12 stories at the end of the street, four stories behind. This fits with the character of the neighborhood in a future London plan update as we’re reviewing heightened density requirements across the city right now. I’m sure that this would be consistent in the future and I’m quite sure that when this goes to OLT, the OLT will be supportive of it as well. That’s why I moved it and that’s why I’m encouraging colleagues to support this.

Thank you. Councillor Hopkins for it. Yeah, thank you and I will not be supporting this. I think to me it is something that I would not want in a neighborhood, the intensification.

It’s more than twice the amount. I think that’s awfully high for a neighborhood. No, it’s not on a main arterial road. I do have concerns that when we support such intensification, we really do change that neighborhood quite a bit.

I’m always looking for some balance here too and I know it’s at the OLT. I know that I’m supportive of staff recommendation. One of the things, there are a number of policies there and I’m starting to see a lot more of staff’s recommendations coming to us and we change that and change the recommendation and I really do think we need to be very careful if we do not support our policies, that we should change them. It’s that simple.

So I will not be supporting the committee’s recommendation that’s supporting of staff’s. Thanks. Other speakers? Go ahead, Councillor Ferriero.

Thank you, Your Worship. So this one, I was having a lot of trouble. I went back and forth on supporting and not supporting the recommendation from the committee and the recommendation from staff. But for me, as it was spoke to already with the North Campus neighborhood and the policy direction there, I see this as, you know, I have a North Campus neighborhood, a very big section of that in my ward too and I know that the residents who live within that area are very particular on the protections that they get from that policy direction.

So because of that and because I do see this as a little bit of a deviation for the North Campus neighborhood, sorry, I will be going with the staff recommendation. I won’t be voting on the committee recommendation. Okay, any other speakers? Seeing none, then it’s the committee’s recommendation that’s on the floor.

So we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries. Nine to five.

Councillor Layman. Thank you. That concludes the report of the Planning Environment Committee. Okay, that brings us to the 10th report of the Corporate Services Committee.

That’s Councillor McAllister, if you want to present the report. Thank you. Through the chair. Happy to report the 10th Report of Corporate Services Committee.

I’ve got no request to pull any of these items, just noting for Council that items 10, 11, and 12 were referred to a future Corporate Services meeting. So I’ll move all items. Councillor Madam Mayor Bergen, you want something separate? Yes.

Thank you, Mayor. I’d like two points. Councillor, you got to just face your computer so we can hear the items you want separate? Yeah, two point three, which is eight.

Pull that separately. And if we could also call 10, 11, and 12 separately. You can call 10, 11, 12 together if that works. I’ll make a comment on 10, 11, and 12 in a second, but I appreciate the ask.

Any other items that anybody needs to help with separately? So, Councillor McAllister, I’ll come back to you in a sec. I want to say I’ve raised this with the clerk. The item the committee did on 10, 11, and 12 show up as separate items on the agenda.

If you look at what the committee actually recommended, they’re contained fully within one singular motion B, which captures not only them, but the other proclamation requests. So it’s my intent to ask the chair to deal with the 4.2 item, which is 4.2 from the committee, which then included all of the proclamations together as one singular item, because that was the committee’s intent. The committee packages those together, but together they should have been listed together as one item on the agenda, despite the fact that they refer to different components. In 4.2, there’s an A and a B.

And B contains the three items that you see listed as 10, 11, and 12. So that’s how we’re going to deal with that when we get there, because that was what the committee did. It was, shouldn’t have been, shouldn’t have been structured that way on the agenda. But we’re not there yet, so given the request of pull things separately, and I have Councilor McAllister make a motion.

Okay, with the notice to pull those items, I’m willing to put items 1 through 7, 9, as one, and noting that 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 would be folded into item 10. So right now I’m just putting 1 through 7, and 9 on the floor. Okay, I think Councilor Roman wants something slightly different too. Thank you.

If you can pull item 9, please. Okay, I will once again, recraft that. Items 1 through 2, 7 on the floor. So just 1 to 7 now, we’ll deal with the other ones separately.

Okay, any comments, questions on 1 through 7? Seeing none, then we’ll open 1 through 7 for voting. Councilor Trosso, 2nd call, Councilor Trosso, marking absent, closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to 0.

Councillor McAllister. Your worship, I’d like to call a point of order, please. It’s a point of order. We are seeing a developing pattern of Councillors exiting the chambers without informing the chair or the clerk, which is a violation of our Council policy and procedure by-law, and they seem to be leaving to go engage with constituents after a vote has happened.

I understand if there are needs for a quick washroom break in and out, but a meeting of Council is a meeting of Council, it’s not an opportunity to go and engage with individuals who’ve just left the gallery, and I’d like this address to your worship. What about it related to the procedure by-laws, so just give me a moment. So I’m going to outline two sections of the procedure by-law that relate to this for colleagues’ attention. One is when we’re voting.

So the members shall not leave their seat or make any noise or disturbance while the vote is being taken until the results is declared. That’s easy to enforce. You can’t vote, get up, walk out, you got to wait for the vote to be finalized. The other piece is the leaving the meeting, but it’s also leaving meeting not to return.

Members shall not leave the meeting when they do not intend to return there to without first advice in the chair. And so a member can leave for a period of time. As long as they’re returning to the meeting, it has been a custom, although not outlined in the procedure by-law, if you are going to leave for an extended period of time to let the chair and the clerks know so that we’re able to mark that down and note that in the record, which they try to do. But the provision about not returning is important because if council member has to go and they’re not coming back, you got to let the chair know so that we know you’re not returning.

We can log you out of the voting system and make the appropriate notes. So I appreciate the concern raised. I feel by outlining these two provisions, and I will make sure the members of council who aren’t here are aware of them. And I will ask for the courtesy of if you’re going to leave for more than, I mean, people need wash and breaks.

Feel free to go do that, right? You need to step out for a minute. If you’re going to leave for an extended period of time, although not particularly prescribed in the procedure by-law is a nice courtesy to the chair and those running the meetings to be able to note and prepare the votes so that we’re not calling your name constantly where you’re not here. So I’m going to leave it as I have heard the point of order.

I’ve outlined the rules of procedure. Certainly ready to enforce them, and I’ll make sure that other members of council who aren’t present at the moment are aware of them. And I’m going to proceed from there and deal with the point of order as dealt with. Councilor Hopkins, we don’t have anything on the floor at the moment, so.

No, I do have a point of order. Okay, if you have a point of order, then you say point of order and rise. Go ahead. As a follow-up, does what is the process when you are online and you do not have your video?

Are you recognized as being removed or how does that follow-through when how does the chair recognize a council member on the video when their camera is not on? Okay, so the councilor, this is going to be just going to include a couple of pieces. So from a point of order standpoint, you’re raising an issue of procedure under the procedure by-law. So under the procedure by-law, we actually don’t have a specific rule about cameras on, off tenants.

Now what council has done is established a separate policy related to this, which has two relevant sections. Although I would remind you the chair enforces the procedure by-laws for the proceedings of the meeting, council policy is a different direction and matters of violation of council policies dealt with through other processes like the code of conduct and other things. So from the enforcement of the meeting perspective, I enforce and all the other chairs do is the procedure by-law in the running of the meeting and the navigating of the meeting. So it is silent on those pieces.

Now what I do to ensure attendance and what the clerks do is you’ll see me often call if cameras are not on for when we say move into closed session or move back into public session, I would often call for ensuring that members are present. There’s also obviously voting cues that occur when we have votes to ensure and you’ll see the clerk call out if someone is missing a vote, just like in council if they forget to click the button, those at home receive the same cue. Now on the policy matter, which, and I’ll provide myself some leeway here, which is not a matter of a point of order or procedure by-law, and for the reminder of members of council, there’s two pieces that are relevant. So members are generally required to have their cameras on, but they can turn them off if they have any issues of internet connectivity or bandwidth that may interfere with the ability to operate.

So it’s kind of a very discretionary basis on when you can have your camera on or off, depending on your, the connection that you have established. Now any, so but generally the practices leave them on. Any member participating remotely, if they need to leave the meeting, they have a requirement to step away prior to the adjournment of the meeting, say for a personal break or they need to attend some other personal matter, they would log themselves out of the session, which is where the clerks would see them leave, and we take that, given not everybody can chime in and say, hey, I’m leaving, although I know some of us have done it, as notice of leaving the meeting, and then they rejoin, they rejoin, they basically log back in, we see them log back in, we start recording their votes, and then we can actually see the login and log out of eScribe when people are in and out. So that’s, so on the matter of the point of order, there’s nothing for me to enforce besides the general practices of ensuring members are there.

On the matter of policy, I’ve shared the general policy with Councillors, we can certainly have the clerk circulate that as a reminder to colleagues, but that’s not something that I wouldn’t enforce as the chair, nor with the committee chairs, that’s a matter of council following general policy and there are other provisions to deal with any sort of issues related to that. So I’m going to deem that as responding to your point of order unless you disagree. Thank you. So back to Councillor McAllister, and we’ve completed one voting, now we’re on to another matter.

Okay, thank you through the chair, I’ll put item 8 on the floor. Okay, item 8 is on the floor, moved by the chair, I need discussion. Seeing none, then we’re going to open 8 for voting. Close in the vote, motion carries, 12 to 1.

Through the chair, putting item 9 on the floor. Number 9 is on the floor, I’ll look for any comments or questions on 9. Seeing none, can open. Okay, colleagues, Councillor Troce, I wasn’t actually logged back into eScribe, so we just have to do the revote with him and log in.

Close in the vote, motion carries, 12. Councillor McAllister. Okay, I’d like to put item 10 on the floor, which I believe now incorporates 11 and 12. Yeah, so item 10 is actually from the committee report, it’s 4.2, which has both an A and a B.

The A is the referred to a future meeting a corporate service committee, the B is the direction to review the current proclamation’s policy, including blah, blah, blah, and then incorporates the piece of the the proclamations that were in the committee’s hands, as well as any future ones get caught up in that too. So I’ll look to see if colleagues want any of that different Councillor Layton. Can we call the votes separate A and B separate? Yes, we certainly can call A and B separately.

Let me just double check on making sure we divide this properly. Okay, I just want to provide a clarification for colleagues and if you want to make sure that this is clear, just look at the committee’s report, 4.2. So it’s just formatted a little bit odd. The committee’s direction on A was the issuance of proclamations, including the ones that were before the committee, B referred to a future meeting of the committee.

So that captures A, like the referral of the three proclamations that were before the committee and future proclamations. So if you, for example, you wanted to grant those proclamations, you need to defeat A because it’s a committee referral of those, like the committee is actually referring it. You can still have B, regardless of what happens to A, because it’s a direction to review the current proclamations policy, including clarifying requests or reporting back to a future meeting, because the policy can be reviewed and clarifying requests for proclamations can be made by individuals, that sort of thing. That can all be done independent of A.

So there’s the referral of the piece and then there’s the other pieces. So we can vote on them separately, but I just want to call these to be clear. A will include the referral of the three that were before the committee, as well as any future ones. B is the direction to review the policy.

So hopefully that’s clear for everybody. So I’ll ask the chair, if we can deal with them separately, we can do A first, which is the referral, and then we can do B after. But we can have a, we can have a discussion on the whole thing colleagues want. Go ahead, Chair.

Okay, so I’ll put item 10A. So this is the referral piece. Okay, Councilor Lehman, maybe we’ll just deal with them separately and speak separately to them, because people might have different opinions. I’m not going to try to match this together.

So the only thing on the floor is the 4.2A piece, which is the referral piece. Okay, Chair, I’m going to, I apologize. I’m going to touch on the review a bit in that. I support the review, of course.

I didn’t support proclamations in the beginning, and we looked at that in the last Council. But I don’t really support the referral. And here’s why, you know, these proclamations have been in the works for a while now. People put good faith work into getting them to this point here to arbitrarily just say, well, we’re going to, now is the time we’re going to review.

And those ones before us, well, we’re going to put those on hold to their view. I think we have a process in place. We should stick to it for those that are in the pipeline. And if we want to review it, which I support that direction as well, for sure, by all means do it.

But let’s not impede those that are already operating under the rules that we have said. Now the speakers, go ahead, Councilor McAllister. Thank you, through the Chair. And just for Council’s awareness, none of these were pending in terms of the dates that they were requesting.

We did acknowledge a committee that all of these are down the road, I believe fall is the earliest one. So there is ample time to review these. Any other speakers to this? Okay.

So just on part A, the referral, we’re open that for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 10 to 4. Okay. I will put 10B on the 4.

Okay, and on 10B, any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll open 10B for voting. Yeah, this, that just needs to be fixed because we’ve already dealt with pieces of it. So we’re just going to, we’re just going to redo the vote on part B without the reference to the three proclamations in it because these were dealt with in the part about A.

Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to 1. Okay. Thank you. Through the Chair, that concludes the 10th report, Corporate Services.

So now we’re on to added reports. There’s the report of Council in closed session. Councilor Layman’s going to make the report on that. Now, I’ll report on the 11th report of Council in closed session.

Progress is made with respect to items 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 is noted on the public agenda. 3.1, 10 SPPC, 5.1, 10 SCSC, 6.1, 10 CSC, and 6.1, 9 PEC. Okay. Thanks.

That’s just a no to progress. 9.2 is an added reports, a special report of the Planning and Environment Committee just has one item, the disclosures of interest, since it was in camera session for that one. So I’ll have Councilor Layman present that report. So I’ll present the ninth report of the Planning Environment Committee being known that there was no community or interest were disclosed when we went in camera.

I don’t imagine there’d be debate on just the disclosures piece, so I got to ask. So there aren’t any. Okay, good. So we’ll open that for voting.

Opposed to vote. Motion carried 14 to 0. That’s the ninth report. Great.

Thank you. Appreciate that. The next item is deferred matters. We have none.

Inquiries. Any inquiries? Councilor Palosa, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship.

And I believe this inquiry, as check with the clerk, is could be an inquiry under section S18.1. Apologies. I was normally let you know, as Chair, ahead of time of my inquiry, just taking some of those time to also look through some emails. In the 2024 final property tax billing has gone out to run in Londoners via Canada Post as of May 31st, and I had a couple questions pertaining to that.

Yeah, sure. Go ahead. Thank you. There might be multiple people who wish to speak to this one, either staff or yourself, that for Councillors who haven’t opened it yet, there is an attachment that for the first time ever the Mayor’s office has done a separate insert into the property tax billing.

My question, either to staff or yourself, would asking if your office absorb the printing costs of your special insert, if your office covered any of the Canada Post fees with it, and then I’ll have one follow-up after that for sure. Yeah, happy to answer that. And then I’ll let staff answer. So my office did cover the printing costs for that insert.

There were no additional Canada Post costs. We kept the we kept the insert under the wait limit that was was prescribed by the regular Canada Post fees. So I can answer that one. I don’t know if you want staff to confirm that or not.

No, I’ll trust you on that one. My second follow-up question would be for anyone who has, well, let’s me haven’t seen it in the mail yet, that the front side absolutely says what we’re working on at council. I would raise the question that the backside was our traditional kind of like frequently called numbers thing, but that counselors weren’t highlighted as a council anywhere on your information. And the content information was your your independent website versus the council website.

So as a council, just feeling that we did the things on the front of it as a team for delivering on housing and other things, but we weren’t mentioned anywhere on it. Let me add. So the website that’s used is my website that I use as mayor. It’s all council related content.

The items that were profiled were all council approved initiatives. And the format was pretty similar to the mail ads that despite the fact that it is all council approved content. Similar to the mail ads that counselors do from the wards. Now the only difference is all members of council have the ability to send one free mail out at the corporation’s expense.

I don’t have that ability. That’s why I ended up paying for the printing costs. And it also wouldn’t have gone to my entire constituency would only gone to those who got property tax bills. So that’s the the answer to those.

Realizing this was the first time it was done a question to you if you would. We’ve found out now that it’s already gone in the mail of just the process or decision making. Like in any member of council throw anything we want as long as it didn’t change the weight limit into any mail of the city’s doing. To your staff of just this process, rather than I don’t believe this came through committee or council, it was just done.

So I don’t have the answer to whether any member of council could put anything in any mail out. I’ll say every member of council does have the ability to do a mail out to their entire constituency with and paid for by the corporate budget as per the council direction previously. The mayor’s office does not have that ability so so we took a different different approach. But I don’t I don’t know about can any member of council put any insert into anything being mailed out.

I don’t know the answer that that’s the staff question. Thank you to the chair. We don’t have a specific council policy that outlines what can and cannot be included within. That’s certainly something that the council wishes us to have some greater authority over that.

That’s absolutely something that we could consider bringing forward in the future. Go ahead. Thank you. I do recognize that last from the council when we did change the policy to allow councilors one word wide mail out that didn’t hit their budget line that was not included for the mayor’s office.

I appreciate you trying to find a way to reach everyone. I’m certainly happy to work on a policy with this recognizing that could be a great opportunity. But for me it was really just wishing that it was the all the council’s work and we were highlighted as a team somewhere in there. Thank you.

Sure. I I’m not going to add to that because you’re not asking a question but I can certainly talk to you about the content afterwards. Other inquiries inquiries. Councilor Van Miever can go ahead.

Councilor you got to do that speaking kind of downward towards your microphone thing. Okay, thanks. I’ve had numerous complaints across my ward about the inconsistency and actual outright lack of grass cutting on city property including parks. I’d like to ask staff, I believe, to share that it should go to.

Obviously in years past we’ve we’ve had to have the grass cut in spring and so on and so forth. What would account for the increase in complaints and the rough start that we’ve had to this year? I’ve spoken to other councilors and they’ve had similar outcomes in terms of the complaints that are coming their awards. Perhaps we could have a full some explanation from staff.

Thanks. Go ahead. Thank you Your Worship and let me start this by saying that city staff are not happy with the state of our road sides parks or sports fields either. My team takes a great deal pride in maintaining these spaces for Londoners.

We’ve had a bit of a perfect storm part in the weather pun with respect to growing conditions. We had a very warm late fall last year was quite wet so we went to into the winter with long fairly long grass. We had a fairly mild winter so we didn’t see full dormancy and then we’ve had an incredibly perfect spring for growing grass and vegetation. Unfortunately those fast growing conditions for the vegetation have also come with a great deal of moisture so we are having a lot of difficulty with doing the work.

It takes a lot more time. It’s a lot heavier and wetter and there’s a lot of locations we simply cannot get equipment into because of the level of saturated soils and mud. We are fully deployed. We have been since May the beginning of May when our seasonal staff start with us and when our arenas staff come back from their winter assignment in the arenas.

We have been authorizing over time anytime the weather permits for us to do well. We’ll continue to do those things. We’re going to do another push on communications out to residents to let them know where we are and thank them for their patience and we’ll be providing an update to counsel this week too. Perhaps this is a follow-up mayor.

I just want to say is it fair to say that we are on top of it as we speak? Your worship we are as absolutely on top of it as we can be given the weather conditions. Unfortunately the forecast for the next 10 days is not going to be a great deal of help. It is a fair bit of rain as well as some warm temperatures that will probably continue to struggle until we see some extended dry weather.

But yes, we are fully deployed. We’re using all the resources we have. Thanks to our friends and fleet who have been helping us keep everything out rolling and cutting and we’ll continue to make sure that our top priority is hopefully we all have some luck with some drier weather soon. Thank you very much.

Appreciate it. Thank you mayor. Great. Okay.

So any other inquiries? No. Seeing none. Any emergency motions?

Seeing none. Okay. We’re on to bylaws. Given a number of questions colleagues might have had about the bylaws and votes, we’re just going to divide this in a way that hopefully will work for everybody.

Okay. So here’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to do all the bylaws with the exception of 188 which relates to the Wellington Gateway. 202 which is Wellington Gateway.

203 which is Wellington Gateway. And then I need to know if any colleagues want any other bylaws pulled separately. Councilor Trossa, which ones? So 743 Wellington and 530 Oxford Street?

No, that’s 743 Oxford Street. 530 Oxford Street. I don’t think there’s any bylaws associated with colleges before the tribunal. So is there?

Oh, there’s two associated with Oxford but non-associated with college. We’re just going to give a second to get these crystal clear. Okay. So we’re going to do kind of three bundles of votes.

We’re going to do Wellington Gateway items, 188, 202, and 203. We’re going to do the Oxford Street item that Councilor Trossa wanted separate which includes 186 and 206 but we’ll do them together and then we’ll do everything else after that. Only because it’s set up this way and for speed we’re going to do everything except ones that we’re pulling. So everything except the Wellington Gateway and the Oxford Street items.

Okay. So I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for all of those. Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Hopkins. We’ll open first reading of those items for voting.

Those in the vote motion carries 14 to 0. I’ll look for a mover and a second reading. Councilor Pribble, seconded by Councilor Layman. Any discussion on second reading?

I have a comment. I’ll just hand the chair over to the Deputy Mayor. I will take the chair and I recognize Mayor Morgan. Thank you.

I just want to make a quick comment about Bill 171 because I think it’s often easy to have appointments go through the bylaws where there aren’t motions through committees but recognizing staff members being appointed to a critical positions are important. And so and I know he’s in the gallery and Tim Smock is here and if you refer to Bylaw 171 it appoints him as an administrator pursuant to the Ontario Works Act to oversee the work that we do as the service provider for Ontario Works. Really important position critical to many members of our community receiving those important services and I wanted to take a moment to pending the results of the council vote of course to congratulate Mr. Smock not only for joining the London team.

I know you are well known in the community for your work with changing ways and before that with the housing corporation and others. So thank you for choosing to join the London team and also congratulations on your appointment to this important position within this division serving many Londoners who are in critical need of Ontario Works supports and services. So I just wanted to add those comments for colleagues to share and make that recognition today and thank you for coming today to sit through the meeting and listen to this so appreciate it. Thank you Your Worship I’m going to return the chair to you noting I have no other speakers on the list.

Great okay with no other speakers on the list we’ll open this second reading for voting. Opposed in the vote motion carries 14 to 0 and moved in seconder for third reading. Councillor Kadi, Councillor ramen will open third reading for voting. Was in the vote motion carries 14 to 0.

Okay so the next set we’ll do is the Wellington Gateway 1’s 188 202 and 203 a mover for those. Councillor ramen seconded by Councillor Ferrera will open first reading for those items for voting. Opposed in the vote motion carries 13 to 1. Okay and mover and seconder for second reading.

Councillor Kadi, Councillor McAllister any discussion on second reading? Seeing none we’ll open second reading for voting. Opposed in the vote motion carries 13 to 1. Mover and seconder for third reading.

Moved by Councillor Pribble seconded by Councillor Hopkins I will open third reading for voting. Opposed in the vote motion carries 13 to 1. Okay next are the items Councillor Troasau for separate 186 and 206. I’ll look for a mover for those two items.

Councillor ramen seconded by deputant Mayor Lewis will open first reading for voting. Opposed in the vote motion carries 13 to 1. Okay second reading or second reading. Councillor ramen seconded by deputant Mayor Lewis any comments on second reading?

Okay seeing none we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote motion carries 13 to 1. And third reading of these items by Councillor McAllister seconded by Councillor Cutty. Opposed in the vote motion carries 13 to 1.

Okay that concludes by-laws the only thing left is a adjournment. I’ll look for a motion to adjourn moved by seconded by Councillor Hopkins. We’ll do that by hand. All those in favor of a adjournment.

No motion carries. Okay we’re adjourned thank you.