July 16, 2024, at 9:30 AM
Present:
A. Hopkins, J. Pribil, S. Trosow, S. Franke, D. Ferreira
Also Present:
R. Armistead, J. Dann, D. Escobar, T. Koza, D. MacRae, A. Spahiu, A. Rammeloo, A. Rozentals, J. Stanford, J. Straub, J. Bunn
Remote Attendance:
E. Hunt, E. Skalski
The meeting was called to order at 9:30 AM; it being noted that Councillor D. Ferreira was in remote attendance.
1. Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest
That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.
2. Consent
Moved by S. Franke
Seconded by J. Pribil
That Items 2.1 to 2.8 BE APPROVED.
Vote:
Yeas: A. Hopkins J. Pribil S. Trosow S. Franke D. Ferreira
Motion Passed (5 to 0)
2.1 7th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee
Moved by S. Franke
Seconded by J. Pribil
That the 7th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on June 19, 2024, BE RECEIVED.
Motion Passed
2.2 Appointment of Consulting Engineer for Contract Administration Services and CP Rail Flagging Fees: Hyde Park Assignment ‘A’ - Phase 2 Project
Moved by S. Franke
Seconded by J. Pribil
That on the recommendation of Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated July 16, 2024, related to the Appointment of Consulting Engineer for Contract Administration Services and CP Rail Flagging Fees for the Hyde Park Assignment ‘A’ Phase 2 Project:
a) Stantec Consulting Limited BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the Hyde Park Assignment ‘A’ Phase 2 project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $243,764.00, 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 allowance of the mandated Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) flagging personnel during the construction of the Hyde Park Assignment ‘A’ - Phase 2 tunnel works per the anticipated CP flagging requirements BE APPROVED for the Hyde Park Assignment ‘A’ - Phase 2 project, with an estimated fee of $52,034 (excluding HST);
c) the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report;
d) the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project;
e) the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract; 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
2.3 Appointment of Consulting Engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program: Round 3
Moved by S. Franke
Seconded by J. Pribil
That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated July 16, 2024, related to the Appointment of Consulting Engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program Round 3:
a) the following consulting engineers BE APPOINTED to carry out consulting services for the identified Infrastructure Renewal Program funded projects, at the upset amounts identified below, in accordance with the estimate on file, and in accordance with Section 15.2(e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy:
i) Spriet Associates London Limited BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the pre-design, and detailed design of Nightingale Ave from Dundas Street to Elias Street, in the total amount of $243,039.50, including contingency, (excluding HST);
ii) Stantec Consulting Limited BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the servicing study, and preliminary design of the Chelsea Green area located along Adelaide Street, immediately south of the Thames River, in the total amount of $301,442.35, including contingency, (excluding HST);
b) WT Infrastructure Solutions Inc. BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the detailed design and construction administration for the Sewer Renewal Project Package, in the total amount of $244,601.00 (excluding HST), noting this bid is being reported as an irregular bid per the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Section 19.4(b) and (c), only one bid was received for this request for proposal;
c) the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report;
d) the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project;
e) the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract; 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
2.4 Mid-year Update: Green Bin and Collection Program Implementation
2024-07-16 - Staff Report (2.4) - Mid-year Update Green Bin and Collection Program Implementation
Moved by S. Franke
Seconded by J. Pribil
That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated July 16, 2024, related to a Mid-Year Update on the Green Bin and Collection Program Implementation:
a) the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED; and,
b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report on the cost, the advantages and disadvantages, design considerations and other potential opportunities and implications of the following changes to the collection system including:
i) Adding pet waste to the Green Bin program in 2025,
ii) Reviewing the Garbage Container Limit and the Garbage Container Exemption periods to ensure there is a balance between customer service and an incentive to reduce waste and maximize the use of the Green Bin and recycling systems, and,
iii) Providing additional collection services or other solutions for items like diapers, incontinence products, large bulky items, other materials, and hard to service townhome complexes, in 2025 or 2026. (2024-E07)
Motion Passed
2.5 RFP-2024-037 Sunningdale Road East and Clarke Road Intersection Improvements - Appointment of Consulting Engineer
Moved by S. Franke
Seconded by J. Pribil
That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated July 16, 2024, related to RFP-2024-037 Sunningdale Road East and Clarke Road Intersection Improvements Appointment of Consulting Engineer
a) R.V. Anderson Associates Limited BE APPROVED as the consulting engineer to complete the detailed design and tendering services at an upset amount of $235,254.00 (excluding HST), in accordance with RFP 2024-037 and Section 15.2 (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 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
2.6 Irregular Result: Rapid Transit Shelters - Public Artwork Vendor of Record Contract Award RFP-2023-276 and Appointment of Consulting Engineer for Contract Administration Services
2024-07-16 - Staff Report (2.6) - Irregular Result Rapid Transit Shelters - Full
Moved by S. Franke
Seconded by J. Pribil
That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to an Irregular Result for Rapid Transit Shelters Public Artwork Vendor of Record Contract Award RFP-2023-276 and Appointment of Consulting Engineer for Contract Administration Services:
a) the bid submitted by Compex Display of $1,292,930.00 (excluding HST), for the future supply, fabrication and installation of Rapid Transit Shelter – Artwork (RFP-2023-276) BE ACCEPTED in accordance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy; it being noted that the proposal submitted by Compex Display was the only proposal received, creating an irregular result, however it meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;
b) the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to appoint Compex Display as the Vendor of Record for fabrication, supply, and installation of shelter artwork in connection with these purchases for a period four (4) years with three (3) one (1) year option periods with renewals based on positive performance and cost, noting cost escalation may be negotiable;
c) AECOM Canada Ltd. BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the resident inspection and contract administration for the 14 Shelter Installations (Downtown Loop, East London Link Phase 1 and 2 and Wellington Gateway Phase 1) in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $559,669.00 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;
d) the financing for this assignment 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 administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project;
f) the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with Compex Display for this work; and,
g) the Mayor and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-F18)
Motion Passed
2.7 School Zone Speed Limit Reductions on Major Streets Amendments to the Traffic and Parking By-law
Moved by S. Franke
Seconded by J. Pribil
That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated July 16, 2024, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 23, 2024 for the purpose of amending the Traffic and Parking By-law (PS-114) to lower speed limits in school zones on major streets. (2024-T08)
Motion Passed
2.8 Upper Thames River Conservation Authority and West London Dyke Phases 9 Through 13 Design
2024-07-16 - Staff Report (2.8) - UTRCA and West London Dyke Phases 9 through 13 Design - Full
Moved by S. Franke
Seconded by J. Pribil
That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated July 16, 2024, related to the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority and West London Dyke Phases 9 through 13 Design:
a) the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the following projects, noting the requirements of this provincial funding program are unique, in that only conservation authorities can apply, requiring 14.3.a) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy:
i) West London Dyke Phase 9 - 13 Design, for the City’s share of consulting fees totalling $534,900.37 including contingency (excluding HST); and,
ii) West London Dyke Phase 9 – 13 UTRCA Project Management Fees, totalling $30,000, (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 work;
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-E13)
Motion Passed
3. Scheduled Items
None.
4. Items for Direction
None.
5. Deferred Matters/Additional Business
5.1 (ADDED) 8th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee
Moved by D. Ferreira
Seconded by S. Trosow
That the following actions be taken with respect to the 8th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee (ESACAC), from the meeting held on July 10, 2024:
a) the following actions be taken with respect to the Neighbourhood Decision Making program:
i) the Municipal Council BE ADVISED that the ESACAC recommends that that the City does not pause funding to community grants and the Neighbourhood Decision Making program; and,
ii) the recommendations, as stated on the ESACAC agenda, BE FORWARDED to Council;
it being noted that the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee held a discussion and received a communication dated July 4, 2024, from C. Butler, with respect to these matters;
it being further noted that the Chair of the ESACAC has submitted the recommendations to the Added Agenda for the July 18, 2024 meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee;
b) the following actions be taken with respect to the 2025 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List Call for Nominations:
i) a representative from the City Clerk’s Office BE INVITED to attend the next meeting of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee meeting to outline the context for nominations for the 2025 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List nominations; and,
ii) the communication, dated June 27, 2024, from the City Clerk and Deputy City Clerks, with respect to the 2025 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List Call for Nominations BE REFERRED to the next Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee meeting; and,
c) clauses 1.1, 3.1 and 5.1 BE RECEIVED;
it being noted that a verbal delegation from B. Samuels, Chair, Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee, was received with respect to this matter.
Vote:
Yeas: A. Hopkins J. Pribil S. Trosow S. Franke D. Ferreira
Motion Passed (5 to 0)
5.2 (ADDED) Service London Portal Request
Moved by S. Franke
Seconded by D. Ferreira
That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee on the feasibility of having a request button on the Service London Portal to report property standards violations and/or property naturalization violations.
Vote:
Yeas: A. Hopkins J. Pribil S. Trosow S. Franke D. Ferreira
Motion Passed (5 to 0)
6. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 AM.
Motion Passed
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 (1 hour, 17 minutes)
[16:23] Good morning everyone, let’s get started here. Please check the city website for additional meeting, detail information, meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and city website.
[17:50] The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishnabek, the Haudenosaunee, the Lupinehwaq, and the Adewandrin. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit today. As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings on request, to make a request specific to this meeting, please contact CWC@lendbin.ca, or 519-661-2489, extension 2425.
[18:45] So moving on to our agenda, any disclosures of your interest? I see none, I just want to acknowledge that Councillor Ferrera is joining us online. Moving on to the consent items, we have a number of consent items, I do want to bring to the committee’s attention, we do have an added delegation request from Mr. Samuels, chairing the EC-ACA committee at 5.1. So with that, we’ll continue our consent items.
[19:28] 2.1, the seventh report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee. First of all, I’ll go to the committee and ask for a motion maybe for the consent items, is there a motion to receive the consent items? Councillor Frank and seconded by Councillor Perble, and I am going to move on throughout the consent items, now receiving the seventh report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee.
[20:02] 2.2 is the appointment of consulting engineer contract administration services for the CP rail and flagging fees. Any questions, comments from committee? I see none, moving on to 2.3, which is the appointment of consulting engineers for the infrastructure renewal for round three. Any questions, comments from committee members? Do none, and moving on to 2.4, which is the mid-year update green bin and collection program implementation.
[20:39] I know this is a report that we’ve been all looking forward to. I will like to go to Mr. Stanford just to do a quick presentation on green bin report. Thank you, Madam Chair. And what I’d like to do, if I may, is just highlight a number of what I believe are the key or the very important items from this particular report. As a refresher, about 127,000 green bins have been delivered in London right now. That’s over the first six months. And essentially, with all the program changes in place, we’ve probably impacted about 325,000 Londoners.
[21:18] So it’s a big change that occurred at the start of the year. And our report is about what has occurred over the last six months. And I’ll tell you, from staff’s perspective, we’re very pleased to see that participation is growing from the original estimate of about 40% in the first month or two months, upwards now of 60% participation. And that number is equally important when we compare that with other programs in Ontario that are very similar to our green bin program. And some of those programs have been at play for 10, even 15 years.
[21:54] So when we compare participation, we see that other communities are hovering between 41 and 69% on average, about 57%. So it puts in perspective what we have achieved and it is a big way. It is Londoners participating in this program in just a short period of time. The amount of material that’s been diverted, well, it’s well over 6,700 tons of green bin materials diverted to converters. And of course, converters turns that into an organic rich product that then goes to farmers fields nearby. So that amount represents somewhere in the order of 700 truck loads of organic material that at one point was heading to landfill site.
[22:32] So these are some of the sort of the key indicators. And as we dive deeper into what is going on, we see through our monitoring program that many, if not most Londoners, are able to stay under the three container limit. In fact, two containers appears to be the average at the curb. When it comes to calls into the city, it has been, well, that’s why we’re here. And that’s why service London was staffed up. Because the calls that came in were significant in the early days. On average, about 260 contacts through phone, email, any other way you can think of.
[23:05] They were reaching us here at the city. And that is seven days a week. Of course, through the London portal, you can provide information when it is convenient to you. The number of contacts have dropped, but still remain quite high, in part because, of course, you have to call in now for large, bulky item pickup. And we’re averaging about 45 contacts per day for that service. So just a couple of the really key things. We asked for feedback, and boy, did we get it. 7,500 feedback forms were filled in. That, as far to my knowledge, represents the most feedback we’ve received on any single project.
[23:39] In this case, really a program. And the information was incredibly valuable. We found out from Londoners that the pretty high marks to the information they received, 67% found it extremely informative. 20% on top of that indicated it provided the basic information. We also heard from residents, they want feedback on how they’re doing. And that’s part of our next wave of information. In fact, the discussion that we’re going to be having here today. We also heard about the service levels. Green bin and recycling done on a weekly basis. 72% were satisfied or somewhat satisfied.
[24:17] When it came to biweekly garbage pickup, this is an interesting statistic. 53% said they were satisfied or somewhat satisfied. But on the reverse side, 43% clearly said they were not satisfied with biweekly service. Now, from a staff perspective, that is perhaps the second biggest change compared to the green bin. And in fact, for those that aren’t participating in the green bin, that is the biggest change they’ve seen. So Madam Chair, just to conclude, there are some recommendations before Civic Works today about what we might wish to do in the future about pet waste, garbage container limits, exemption periods, as well as collection services that may or may not be beneficial to the Londoners, things that we wish to look at and provide more information in our next report, January 2025.
[25:06] But what we’ve learned from Londoners is, of course, they want more materials and more information. We want to talk about that feedback. We’re going to relaunch our feedback form, starting basically early August. And we’re going to carry that forward again to November and see if we get a different or similar information from Londoners. We still have to go through two very warm months, the remainder of July. And of course, August and easily September is a warmer month these years now. We want to continue to dive deeper into our town home complexes. There are some locations there that are working with the property owners and superintendents.
[25:42] It is just difficult to get service into these places. So we’ve got to take a closer look. And in fact, that look often takes a lot more time than we’ve originally planned. The multi-residential pilot project, we’ve got three buildings up and running right now. There are about five or six that are just waiting to hear back from the city. We’ve had to, unfortunately, shift gears a little bit. We’re spending so much time and effort on the curbside component that we’re not able to move as quickly the multi-residential component. Now on the plus side, we’ve got the experience now here in London of about three months with a couple of these pilot projects.
[26:16] So it’s going to make it a lot easier for the superintendents and building owners to understand which London examples on how these programs can work. And the final thing that I’ll report notes is that we have, we have seen evidence of increased illegal dumping. Over the next few months, we’re going to get a better handle on the quantity of that. There has always been illegal dumping in London. The thing now is we’ve got to get track and determine how much of that might have been increased associated with the biweekly garbage. For example, parks where we see a full garbage can and it’s not really littered from the parks.
[26:52] It’s one or two garbage bags have been dropped off. So we’re going to get a better handle on how much of that is occurring. And of course, look at remedies for that as well. So Madam Chair, looking forward to any comments a committee has on what I believe is a very exciting report. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Stanford. And I’d just like to remind the committee of the recommendations. We are receiving it and we are adding further direction for more information to come back to us in January. So I’ll go to committee members, Councillor Tristle.
[27:29] Thank you, through the chair. I’m not going to change any of the recommendations, but I really have to say that this was just such an outstanding report. And I want to thank all the members of your team. Are they here? The names in here, Mr. Chief. Just for a moment, if staff can respond. Mr. Springer. Oh, you’ve got your mic on too. Mr. Stanford. Madam Chair, my apologies. No, people are not here today.
[28:01] There might be a few listening in, but any comment like that, I definitely share with staff. And it goes way beyond just folks in waste management area because as you can tell, it taps into service, London staff. So thank you, thank you just for that comment alone. And this means a lot to people in my ward. And I’ve heard back from people about how happy they are. And by not getting complaints, I sort of quasi-here that they’re happy. But this really has turned around. There was a lot of skepticism when this started, especially around campus.
[28:35] But this has just turned out really well. And I think part of that is due to the diligence of you and your team. You’re always out there and you’re always getting feedback from people. But the results that you presented to us in this report, it’s so thorough, you know? And it just gives this council a really good basis to understand what changes we might want to make. The only question I have, though, is based on your learnings in terms of dealing with property managers in apartment buildings, are there certain aspects of apartment buildings that make them better suited to this project?
[29:18] Are there certain apartment buildings that have inherent problems that won’t work? Are there, if I’m looking at all of the apartment buildings in my ward, is there some criteria I could be applying in my head to think of what a better candidate would be? Mr. Stanford, and maybe you can address townhouses as well. Thank you, through the chair. It’s interesting. It’s almost with multi-residential buildings, no two buildings are identical. Often is the amount of space that we’re working with, as well as the relationship between the superintendents and the tenants in the building.
[29:56] The buildings that we have in line right now, we’ve found wonderful relationships, and that is really helping getting the program off the ground initially, getting participation at the start, and as well, just even after three months, troubleshooting the challenges, ‘cause we have to get back to issues and solve them very, very quickly. But when it comes to what we are looking for, this is the challenge. There are 700, 800 buildings in London. We don’t wish for the pilot project to only work with the easy ones. We actually want to tackle a couple that have the challenges of less space to find out, is it more frequent pickup that is required?
[30:35] And if that’s the case, maybe that will be the solution. So the slowness is due to city staff, and we’ll put it on me. We just haven’t been able to get there to go through the appropriate awareness and education with initially the superintendents and/or the building owner. So we have a list right now of people who want to go the next step. It’s now a matter of us just reconnecting with them in the next handful of weeks after this particular meeting. We’re in the exposure we’re getting. We think interest will be there again very, very quickly. But as far as going forward, working with building owners is essential, because they are the ones responsible for putting the system in place.
[31:16] So even if there’s a building one that says, no, I don’t want any interest in the pilot project, it is really in their best interest to pay attention to the information and the learnings. And we’re working very closely with our colleagues at the London Property Men from Association, where many of these groups are members. Not all, but many of them are. Councillor. Thank you. I’d like to go to Councillor Pribble. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Stanford, for this report as well. And at the beginning of my ward residence, I did receive a lot of calls sent to emails.
[31:50] And I have to say a couple of things. The first one is the biweekly garbage collection notes with Q&A you have provided us with. It was a tremendous help and answered many, many questions. And also collections, frequency, Ontario municipalities. There was a help as well. So our residents did see, got the answers to the questions, most of them. And they saw how the other municipalities are working. So there was a tremendous help for me. I don’t have, in the last two, three months, I did not receive any, really, maybe one, two, so not too many.
[32:22] But when I look at our service, our service London portal, just last two months, we are, you know, compared to last year, we were at 3,000. Now we are at roughly 9,500 for solid waste. And I know you mentioned just a few minutes ago, we received feedback, about 7,500. So I’m just curious, in terms of just last two months of the 9,500 solid waste, did we look into it in terms of what has to do with Greenbin, what has to do with regular stuff? And did we evaluate it?
[32:54] And besides the recommended recommendations that we have in front of us, are there any additional initiatives? How we can go deeper into those? For example, last two months, 9,500 requests. Thank you. Mr. Stanford. Through the chair, when people reach out to service London, the information that’s categorized into usually about five to 10 different categories ranges anywhere from Greenbin, Greenbin service, not collected, what was maybe in the bin that was not acceptable. Of course, we had calls on biweekly garbage pickup.
[33:30] If people not quite understanding which particular week is their service, they miss something, what can they do? And then, of course, with the bulky item collection, that’s about 45 contacts per day that we did not have just last year. So the information coming into service London is also valuable information. And any information there is documented, we didn’t include that data specifically in this particular report because of the wealth of information that we received from the feedback form, which allowed them, of course, to also provide additional comments. So what we’re hearing from service London is captured through the feedback forms.
[34:08] We’re not really hearing anything different, other than that service that is available from our service London staff has really, really been extremely helpful. And your comments about when people here and get responded to very, very quickly, I think they have comfort even if they receive the information that’s not what they’re looking for. They still have received a response and they know where to go for further information. So it’s going to be the combination of all this information that is crucial to making any future changes should there be a need for future changes. Council?
[34:41] Thank you for the answer. I’m just going to follow up with the comment that the issues I had at the beginning, I have to say thank you to your staff because there were quite a few. And I received the address did very quickly. And I received the feedback from my residents again that thank you for addressing these issues promptly. Any other comments for committee members? Councillor Frank. Thank you, I also want to echo my thanks. It was a very thorough report and it looks like we’re on track to hitting some good targets. I was wondering, I know that we have an overall 60% waste diversion plan.
[35:17] And I’m wondering if we’re hitting 60% within the green bin program, where does that put us overall within the, like the broad or 60% waste diversion target that we’re trying to achieve? Mr. Stanley? Through the chair, that’s an item that we haven’t quite calculated right now. That will be a key part of our next report when we do our year-end statistics. But just based on the tonnage to date, the green bin is, I wouldn’t say it’s succeeding. It’s where we should be on our road to 60% diversion. Of course, with changes in recycling, all those items are going to be part of that.
[35:55] But that will be a key part of our report in January of next year. So at this point in time, I can just say based on the numbers, we’re heading in the right direction, but I can’t offer you a percentage at this point. Councillor. Thank you, appreciate that. And I look forward to that later on. And then the other question I had was regarding the illegal dumping in parks. As we know, based on the budget, we already have a strong need for more staffing within Parks Department to be able to deal with garbage in our parks. I’m just wondering, I know that there’s a mention of further details to estimate the amount, types of materials in areas to compile into a list of prevention measures.
[36:32] My understanding is you’re already working with parks operations, but I’m wondering, given the multi-year budget will be coming up quickly if there are discussions about needing any funding, given that we didn’t fund the parks cleaning in the multi-year budget at the increase that we needed in staff. So just wondering if those conversations are happening as we move into the multi-year budget process. Mr. Sandford. Thank you and through the chair. I do know the conversations are occurring as we’ve indicated in our report. What I don’t know is the status of them.
[37:04] I’m not sure if Paul Yeoman, the director of that area is online with us today or not, Paul, are you online? Unfortunately, Paul’s not, but I will make sure he’s aware of the question ‘cause we are getting ready for the annual update. Thank you. Councilor, thank you. I appreciate that. And if you’re able to pass along that, I can speak for myself, I can speak for council, but I’m very supportive of revisiting that budget ask given that not only did they already need it, but now they need it even more given the increase in illegal dumping. But again, thank you for everything and look forward to continuing to see the green bin being very successful.
[37:41] Thank you. Thank you and to committee members for your comments. And if I can make a few comments here from the chair, I too was really pleased to read this report. A lot of positive information coming forward. I’ve heard from residents in my ward who were a little skeptical of the green bin program, now invested in the green bin program. So I’m not surprised that 40% going to 60%. And one of the reasons I’ve heard is because they see less garbage going out as well.
[38:16] We are averaging around two bags. So really pleased that it is successful in terms of participation. I’m looking forward to the January report. I think it’s really important that we have a better understanding when it comes to townhouses and apartment buildings. We can see that the majority of our development is our townhouses and apartment buildings, not singles anymore and the opportunities there. It’s going to be a reminder to me when I sit at planning and listen to applications and making sure even questioning if it’s in a space for garbage, in particular the green bin.
[39:02] I think there are further opportunities out there as well. I know the provincial government has done a good job with the blue box program, making it produce a responsible. But as we become accustomed to sorting things, I do have concerns around the large home pickup furniture. Things like that, that has definitely increased. And I wonder if there’s possibilities of the provincial government doing more to support municipalities in doing the larger pickups.
[39:38] And with that, I just have such great confidence in staff and for the great work that has gone into implementing this, it’s taken us a long time to get here. And I’m so thankful that we are here. And again, I have such confidence that we’ll continue to make this a successful program. So with that, I will see no other further comments. So we’ll just move on to the next consent item, which is 2.5, the Sunnydale Road East and Clark Road intersection improvements.
[40:16] Really good to know that we’re getting some traffic lights put in there. 2.6 is the regular result, rapid transit shelters, the public artwork and vendor of record contract award. We do have staff here to answer any questions from committee. I see Councillor Frank with her hand up. Go ahead. Thank you. Again, I just wanted to say this looks exciting and I look forward to seeing what different public artwork we have coming forward.
[40:50] I did have one question through the chair, just regarding if all the rapid transit shelters will be bird friendly glass. Thank you. Yes, Merced. Yes, and through the chair, that’s correct. All of our shelters will have bird friendly glass. They use a bird fritt pattern that creates basically a dense visual pattern that the birds can sense that there’s a surface they can’t fly through. So they will all have that on the shelters. Councillor, thank you, I appreciate that. Any other questions from committee members?
[41:24] I see none. Moving on then to 2.7, which is the school zone speed limit reduction. Questions from committee? I, Councillor Trozzo. Thank you for bringing this forward. This is something that I think we really badly need and I’m glad to see this is happening. I do have a few questions about where, in some instances, well, I’ll say highberry, highberry. There are still some very, very high numbers there.
[41:59] And is there anything we can do to bring that down or could maybe we should consider phasing it down over a period of time? ‘Cause it just seems like a really fast speed for people to be going past schools. I am, just before I go to staff, I know the recommendation is to reduce speed limits by 10 kilometers. And I think there’s a variance in different areas and just referring to the council’s question. Just wanna make sure the public is aware of that. Just like to go to staff.
[42:37] Through the chair, thank you for the question. Yes, the recommendation here is to lower the speed limit by 10 kilometers per hour in school zones on major streets. So the majority of these locations are currently posted at 50. So that 10 kilometer lowering takes them to a 40. There are a few streets that are currently posted 60. So the school zone speed limit would be 50. It’s recommended to be 50 at those locations.
[43:11] The setting of these speeds is at the jurisdiction of council. The 10 kilometer lowering is pretty typical for a school zone. Lowering, speed limit lowering of 20 or more also incurs the requirement based on the Highway Traffic Act to post-advanced warning signs. So that would be an additional sign requirement if the reduction was increased from 10 to 20. Councilor.
[43:44] Would it be possible for us to, I don’t wanna hold this up. So I don’t want to not pass the recommendation, but I wanna refer to the corner of Oxford and Highbury. And I want to refer to the corner of Huron and Highbury. And I just know incidentally from listening to the news that Highbury is a frequent site of accidents and near accidents. Would it be possible for us to get from the police department or from the traffic department better idea of what the exact situation is.
[44:28] It does just those two intersections in terms of perils and dangers and accidents. Mr. McQuay. Yes, staff can scrutinize those two locations on Highbury that you identified. If it’s deemed appropriate, one approach could be to lower the overall speed, the general speed limit and then the school’s own speed limit would lower in conjunction with that.
[45:02] So we can take that away and review those locations. Councilor. Thank you. Would that require an amendment to the motion or is that something you could just do? We can just do that based on the feedback here at committee. Thank you. And then through the chair, I don’t have any further questions on this. Thank you. Any other questions from committee members? Councilor Prigle. Thank you. I sort of chair to the staff. I just had a question regarding the school zones. And is it kind of where we have the proposed period?
[45:37] It’s seven to four p.m. And September till June. Is it kind of where we have it now in the existing school zones? Do we have that currently right now? Mr. McQuay. School zones on neighborhood streets and neighborhood connectors were posted 12 months a year, 24/7. But the proposed approach in this report is to go more towards the hours that schools are typically operating.
[46:13] It has a better fit with the Highway Traffic Act and better enforceability from what we’re hearing from London Police. So it works well with this recommendation. And yeah. Council. Thank you for that. And I have a follow up. I’m just, and I’m supportive of it. And I have only one proposal there which I could agree with. But my question is more, how is it going to be in terms of the signage? You know, how is it going to be for the drivers? So let’s say July, August, it’s lifted.
[46:45] Let’s say, because again, for the drivers, how are we going to do it? So it’s easy to understand to the drivers, easy to see in reality, how is that going to work? Mr. McQuay. Thank you through the chair. So the signage that will be placed on the street is shown in Figure 1 in the report. And it identifies the time of day, the days of the week and the months of the year. So it’ll be identified as September through June. We would accompany this since it’s new to London with communications programs to help educate and increase awareness amongst the public.
[47:24] Sort of at a general level. And then we could also do targeted communications by working with our partners at the school board. Can’t say. Okay, thank you for that. I did see the signs by just the note again for the drivers. So it’s the information is so we inform the public as much as we can, but what you were saying that we are going to take other sources. I mean, used to do so. So I’m glad to hear that. One thing I want to make a comment from last round. We did this. The decrease on Dundas place has been working. And I talked to various merchants.
[47:59] And certainly that was very positive. And everyone feels kind of safer. So I just want to make that comment. It works. And certainly in my area, there are a couple of roads in terms of Fanshawe and Richmond that late in the evening or even past midnight, there are issues. But again, I know I do realize it’s not the issue of signage and us. It’s the issue of enforcement. But if there will be any additional things that we could do to be proactive in my ward on these two roads, Fanshawe and Richmond, there are high speeds.
[48:34] And again, it’s usually late in the evening after 11 o’clock midnight. Please do consider those. Thank you and no more questions. Thank you, Councillor. Any other comments from committee? I see none if I could ask a few questions here from the chair. Thank you to staff for bringing this forward. I’ve been waiting for this one for a very long time. I’m really pleased to see that we are reducing our speeds on these arterial roads. We do have a number of schools on them. But just following up on the Councillor’s question around signage, I know we’re hoping to look at installation for this September.
[49:16] Any concerns about getting all the signage put in? And I’ll start with that question. Yeah, thank you for the question. The intent subject to council approval is to start the signage as quickly as we can. It does require detailed layouts and figuring out where the signs can go and coordinating with the road environment. So it won’t be possible to get them all installed by September.
[49:52] This is probably an initiative that will take likely until the end of the calendar year. But we would intentionally target higher priority locations, try to get whatever we can can done before September. But it will take longer than that. Thank you for that information. And my last question is, are we going to keep our cameras in our school zones and community zones that will continue? Yes, the automated speed enforcement program certainly will continue and compliments this recommendation today.
[50:29] It adds an enforcement tool to the school zones that wasn’t previously available prior to the Safer School Zones Act enabled by the province. So that that will apply to these school zones as well. Thank you for that. And for the recommendation coming to us today, moving on 2.8, which is the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, and West London Dyke Phase 9 through 13 design. Any questions, comments from committee? See none.
[51:05] And with that, we do have a motion on the floor and we can proceed to vote. Chair. - Oh. Councillor for my apologies, please proceed. No worries, it’s just, I wanted to see if we could get a summary from staff. Just what to expect for the West London Dyke part for the phases 9 through 13 design. Just a quick summary, if we could get that from staff. I wonder if I can go to staff for a quick update, thank you.
[51:41] Thank you through the chair. So this section looks after the design work for the phases between the forks of the Thames and to Cavendish Park. So westerly, this fits in with the design work underway as well with trunk sewer upgrades, so on in the general area. So in terms of what it will look like or anything like that, I’m not sure what sort of details a council was looking for, but we don’t have those at the moment as we are just entering the design phase, but there will be more information to come. Councillor. Okay, thank you, thank you for that.
[52:13] I’ll be looking forward to the extra information on that. I know it’s a, the West London Dyke is obviously a big protection for the neighborhood in the area, so, and we are seeing flooding events. So, and I know it’s supposed to be protected for that 250 year flood. So looking forward to that information, thank you. Thank you, Councillor, for your question as well. It is a massive infrastructure project and it’s been going on for a number of years and it continues and the importance of having that dyke there is something that we would definitely need in our city.
[52:50] So thank you for your question and hopefully we’ll receive further information. Councillor Per goes. Thank you, Chair, and I know I did have one more question and I’m glad we are still in consent under the school zones and I’m gonna wait Mr., it’s actually a question for Mr. McCray. Councillor. - Mr. McCray, I just want to ask you, I did have one more question regarding the school zones and when I look at the signs and there is that period of time, how will the drivers know that what’s the speed limit in July and August?
[53:28] So I understand we have the times there and those the question I forgot to ask. So how will they know, so we go, let’s say down to 50, how will they know that in July, August, they can go 60, 70, 80? Mr. McCray. Yeah, through the chair. So the signage that is on the street currently with the general, the speed limit. So that signage will remain, the speed limit signage will override when the driver enters the school zone. So in the times that the school zone speed limit does not apply, the driver knows from their previous signage what the sort of the overarching speed limit is.
[54:14] And then there’ll be a reminder of that at the end of the school zone where that general speed limit will be reinforced with another sign where the school zone ends. And this is, it’s an approach that was applied, sorry, that’s been applied in other municipalities. It’s pretty common through the Ontario traffic manuals and York Region, Region of Waterloo, Mississauga. There’s a lot of examples of this. So it’s hopefully understandable and will be clearly laid out based on the provincial guidance with the signage.
[54:55] Thank you, no more questions. And with that, we have the consent items for approval or for voting. We could proceed. Councillor Ferrera. Aye vote, yes. Bosing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. And moving on, we have no scheduled items. The items for direction, deferred matters, additional business, we do have 5.1.
[55:40] We do have a delegation from Mr. Samuels, the chair of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee. Mr. Samuels is here. We do not need a motion to accept his delegation. So Mr. Samuels, do you have to five minutes? Thank you, good to be here back at Civic Works Committee. I think this is my first time in chambers with these barriers removed. It’s kind of nice actually, you can see me more clearly. I’m here to present the report from the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee.
[56:15] Normally this would appear automatically on your agenda, but because our meeting only occurred recently, I suppose it was supposed to carry forward to the next cycle. I’m here because one of the items on our agenda was a bit time sensitive that I wanted to bring to your attention. And I wanted to just speak to some other updates from the committee. At our meeting that was held last week, we received an update from municipal compliance. Mr. Jeffrey attended and addressed some questions about the communication pieces to support the Yard and Lot Maintenance by-law. This is something that had been brought forward to Civic Works previously.
[56:52] Our committee had issued recommendations. I’ve been made to understand that work on the communication pieces is ongoing. They are currently developing the prohibited plants list. They’re consulting with First Nations community members about any considerations with plants ending up on that list. We discussed a few aspects of the by-law. The webpage will be updated in the near future. They’re also updating the door hangers. Really just trying to make it easier for people to understand how to achieve compliance. There was also interest in discussion about creating a separate webpage with information about why using vegetation and naturalizing your garden and installing a rain garden, et cetera, is good practice.
[57:34] So looking forward to those pieces coming back around. One other thing I thought I’d mention is we talked about kind of the mechanisms for enforcement in response to complaints. And the committee had suggested, and Mr. Jeffery seemed somewhat receptive, perhaps incorporating this into the service London portal so that when people have property standards complaints, they’re using the service London portal instead of just having to pick up the phone. I think that would lead to better data being collected. And it would also produce some accountability for the complainant to provide specific information when they fill out the form.
[58:07] The second item on our agenda, and the primary reason I’m here today, is our committee passed a recommendation against the city of London pausing funding for community grants and the neighborhood decision making program. We also requested and passed a motion to the effective, having this report be forwarded along to your committee so that it may be referred to SPPC for their upcoming meeting about the first report of the Strategic Opportunities Working Group. I don’t want to speak at length about this report. Unfortunately, did not make it onto your agenda today, so I forwarded it to the individual emails for all members of the committee, if you want to review.
[58:47] In addition to the recommendation against pausing of the funding, our committee has provided five questions that we would like to be forwarded to SPPC. These are not just about this initial decision, but about the process for this working group and for working groups in general. The questions are, one, what exactly would replace the existing grant streams and neighborhood decision making program, two, where does the 0.1% budget savings estimate come from, and does this estimate account for costs associated with shifting delivery of neighborhood improvements into the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, as discussed.
[59:23] Number three, how has the spending funding for grants and neighborhood decision making been studied in terms of impacts to the capacity of relevant divisions to deliver services, impacts to the workload of individual members of council, as well as impacts to community partners who work with the city. Number four, what is the process for the strategic opportunities review working group to receive suggestions of potential cost saving opportunities from outside its core membership, such as from the city’s advisory committees. The environmental stewardship and action community advisory committee members are prepared to propose cost saving measures that the working group could explore, but we are unsure how to share that feedback.
[1:00:02] And finally, number five, what is the city of London’s policy with respect to receiving delegations at working groups, such as at the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group or the Governance Working Group? And so if your committee agrees, we would ask that this report and our questions be forwarded along to SPPC, recognizing that the added agenda deadline is soon. I’ve taken the initiative to submit this as an attachment to my delegation request at that committee. It will be received. However, because our advisory committee reports to the Civic Works Committee, not SPPC, I’m here simply to close the loop and ensure that that referral takes place.
[1:00:37] Anyways, thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Mr. Samuels for being here with us. I do want to bring to the committee’s attention. On the added, it is 5.2B, the request to have the recommendation from the advisory group that we just heard from, be referred to, or the recommendations be referred to the SPPC committee, which is coming up in the next couple of days for consideration.
[1:01:16] So the recommendations will be sent to every council member before the committee as well from my understanding from clerks. So I am looking for any questions from committee as well. First of all, I’d like to put the motion on the floor. Need a motion to receive the report. If I can look for a motion, Councilor Ferreira, and I’m looking for a seconder, Councilor Trissel.
[1:01:58] I’d like to go to Councilor Frank now. Thank you. So is that the vote that’s in the e-scribe? The clerk is just posting it right now. So I was going to ask that under item two, it says that before due to council, and we just heard that the request was to forward to SPPC. I understand that the chair has sent it as a separate delegation item, but I do understand that he’d like to follow procedure, having civic work send it to SPPC so that it can be formally received.
[1:02:35] I’d like to go to the clerk. So it goes to SPPC not to council, the recommendation. I’d like to go to clerks, Elizabeth Hunt, and then I’ll go to Councilor.
[1:03:18] Thank you, and through the chair, we can confirm that this recommendation has been added to the SPPC added agenda as an added item to Mr. Samuels’ request for delegation status. We can, as civic work committee, this could be forwarded to council as a communication on the same item. That is the pathway that this committee has. The committee cannot forward things to SPPC. However, I can confirm the recommendations are on the SPPC added agenda because Mr. Samuels has submitted them.
[1:03:55] Councilor Fang? Thank you, I’m satisfied with that. I just want to make sure that other members of council understood that procedure and that it’s acceptable for that process. I did have one question, perhaps through the chair to the other chair, Mr. Samuels. I am wondering the discussion about including naturalized, like including that as a by-law complaint on service on its portal. A bit more about that discussion if it requires any council direction because I do see that as very valuable. I think that having a method of being able to track those kinds of complaints the volume year to year and as well being able to have a more thorough description from the residents who are complaining.
[1:04:38] I think that would provide a bit more information to our by-law officers when they go out. So I am just wondering if that requires any council direction or staff are already underway executing it. So I know that the mayor is discussing something else with the chair. So I was kind of going to ask Mr. Samuels a quick question if that’s okay, which was just if the staff indicated that they were going to include a button on the service on a portal for the naturalization by-law complaint. Mr. Samuels.
[1:05:12] Sorry, I try to do two things at once. We discussed it. They indicated they do not currently have that in process. It’s something they could take back for consideration. They’re always looking at ways of improving service delivery, that’s what was said. I think they saw merit in the proposal but I think this is a broader conversation that has yet to happen. So if it’s something that the committee feels strongly about you could recommend that to staff for consideration that might help move to think of things along but that kind of falls outside the scope of our advisory committee, thanks. Council.
[1:05:44] Thank you, yes, I do see value in that. So I’m wondering if maybe I could put even a motion forward to be put on the deferred matters list of asking staff to look into adding a service London button in regards to being able to complain about naturalized lawns. I think I’d be happy with a future report back from staff on that ‘cause I don’t know if it’s feasible in all the details. So major some motion to have a report back from staff on including a naturalization complaint on the service London button.
[1:06:20] Okay, so we need to, if it’s gonna go on the deferral list, we do need a motion for that. It should be separate to receiving this report as well. So we do have the report on the floor looking, any other questions from committee members? Councillor Frank. Thank you, can I make that motion now then? I think it does have to be separate so we can vote on this and then you can bring forward a separate motion.
[1:06:59] All right, any other questions from committee members? Seeing none, we can proceed to vote. Yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. So we do have a motion for a request going on our deferral list from this report.
[1:07:38] So I would like to go to staff for any comments regarding the Councillor’s request to have go on the deferral list, the by-law information materials for the naturalized gardens and having a portal for service land. So I haven’t seen the motion yet, but generally speaking, that is the request.
[1:08:11] Maybe I’ll go to the Councillor to clarify the motion and then I’ll go to staff for their comments. Sure, yeah. Upon reflection, I’m just thinking through this and this is why I think it’d be good to have staff from by-law here maybe to discuss that a report back, whether or not it’s a button that people can apply for a property standards violation ‘cause technically that’s what the naturalization stuff falls under or if it’s more specific to naturalization. So I think it would be a report back from staff regarding the ability to have a complaint button on the service on a portal for property standard violations because that’s more encompassing, but specifically maybe also looking at just having a naturalization one.
[1:08:55] I just don’t know which one is better or more feasible or allowed. I’m sure there are some legislation things that I’m not considering. So that’s generally what I’m trying to articulate. The clerk does have a question. Yeah, I’m wondering if we could write property standards violations and/or naturalization property or property naturalization violations because I’m not sure if we’re allowed to do property standard violation complaints through a portal if it has to be called in.
[1:09:34] I don’t know what the legislation says. So I think the clerk is working on the motion at the moment. I think we do need to see the motion and then I will go to staff for their comments. So the motion is posted.
[1:10:27] I hope staff can see it on the screen. Yes, Councillor? My E-Scribe is down. I’m unable to see the motion on the screen. Is there any way you could read out the language back or send that? - I will send that. So I will read out the motion.
[1:11:21] Civic administration be directed to report back to a future meeting of the CPSC on the feasibility of having a complaint button on the surface London portal to report property standards violations and/or property naturalization violations. That is the motion. Councillor Ferrera, do you want me to read it out one more time? No, thank you, Chair. That was good, thank you. Okay, so the motion, if the move or the motion is satisfied, I am looking for a seconder.
[1:12:03] I can second that, Chair. Thank you, Councillor and moving on to questions. Councillor Trussell. I just went to the service London portal and there already is a button for a property standards complaints, but it says buildings are your unit. So I think it might be a little bit ambiguous. So I think that if there’s a separate button for either change building to property, but better yet have a separate button, I think it would be much clearer to, I think a lot about when people approach service London and whether they get confused.
[1:12:45] So I think having an explicit button would be a good idea. Having said that, principles of web design tell us that you can only have so many buttons before you have too many buttons. But I think under the circumstances, this would be a good use of another button. And while it is technically a property standards complaint, I’m not sure that people make that connection. And once you limit it to unit or building, that would cause confusion. So I guess what I’m saying is I support the motion, but when this goes to staff, I think it would make sense for it to be a separate button.
[1:13:27] Thank you for that. I will go to Councillor Frank. This is a report back as well, just as a reminder to committee members. Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, I just did a quick look at service London as well. And this one, the button you’re talking about looks much more like rental units and landlord tenant board issues. And when you click on it, that’s what it brings up. So I don’t think people would think that they would submit a naturalization one through that. So I agree with you as what I’m trying to say. And then through the chair, I don’t know if staff here can comment, but I would love to hear as you were indicating their feedback as well.
[1:14:04] Before I go to Councillor Pribble, I would like to get staff’s comments on the motion that’s in front of us to get a report back on the feasibility of having a complete button for property standard violations and or naturalized area violations. Mr. McQuaid. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I’m afraid that this response would best be provided by either by law enforcement or service London staff. I don’t think they are with us virtually.
[1:14:40] It’s really, yeah, it’s a question for them. And it’s the resolution indicates an item for CPSC committee. Thank you for that, Councillor Pribble. Thank you and just minor suggestion. And I was wondering if my fellow Councillor who proposed this motion, if we can change the word complaint into request or something like that, but complaint, I would like to change that word. Thank you. The Councillor is okay with just one moment.
[1:15:21] Councillor Frank comments. I’m fine with that. And I just want to confirm if the seconder was okay as well. The seconder is okay with that. Thank you. Through the chair. So we are changing the word then and we’ll just wait for the motion to come up again. So the complaint has been changed to the request button.
[1:16:12] Councillor Ferreira, just for your information. And we can proceed to vote. Any other questions, comments? Seeing none, we can proceed to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. So that was 5.2 moving on to sixth adjournment.
[1:16:51] Looking for a motion to adjourn. Councillor Frank seconded by. Councillor Pribble. We can do a hand vote and see some more hands here. Thank you, Councillor Ferreira. And with that, I adjourn the meeting.