July 23, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:02 PM; it being noted that Councillors S. Trosow, P. Van Meerbergen and S. Hillier were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED Councillor J. Pribil discloses a pecuniary interest in item 2, clause 2.1 of the 12th Report of the Corporate Services Committee, having to do with Film London Review and Next Steps, by indicating that his son is contemplating seeking project support from Film London.

That it BE NOTED Councillor C. Rahman discloses a pecuniary interest in item 4.3, clause 6.3 of the Confidential 12th Report of the Corporate Services Committee having to do with Partial Property Acquisition - 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd. East London Link Project by indicating Fanshawe College is her employer.  

That it BE NOTED Councillor P. Cuddy discloses a pecuniary interest in item 10, clause 3.3 of the 11th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee having to do with 3614, 3630 Colonel Talbot Road and 6621 Pack Road by indicating he has known the Flaherty family for over 50 years.

That it BE NOTED Councillor P. Cuddy discloses a pecuniary interest in item 4.1, clause 6.1 of the Confidential 12th Report of the Corporate Services Committee, having to do with Offer to Purchase City-Owned Lands, Sofina Foods Inc. - Part of Pine Street by indicating that he has previously leased land to Sofina Foods Inc.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by D. Ferreira

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

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending disposition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.1/12/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending disposition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.2/12/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.3/12/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.4/12/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.5/12/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.6/12/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.7/12/CSC)

4.8 Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, and advice with respect to litigation with respect to various personal injury and property damage claims against the City. (6.8/12/CSC)

4.9 Solicitor-Client Privilege

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, regarding the regulation of advocacy message signs on city streets. (6.1/9/CPSC)

4.10 Land Acquisition / Solicitor-Client Privilege / Commercial, Financial Information of the Corporation with Monetary or Potential Monetary Value / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction for Negotiation Purpose

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

4.11 Personal Matters About Identifiable Individual

A matter pertaining to personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees, with respect to the Awarding of the 2024 Queen Elizabeth Scholarships. (6.3/9/CPSC)

4.12 Litigation/Potential Litigation / Land Acquisition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation and land acquisition and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose and directions and instructions to officers and employees or agents of the municipality. (6.1/13/Council)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

That Council convenes In Closed Session, from 1:10 PM to 1:33 PM.

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

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the Minutes of the 12th Meeting of the Municipal Council, held on June 25, 2024, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by J. Pribil

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

6.1 3614, 3630 Colonel Talbot Road and 6621 Pack Road (Z-8720)

  1. B. Harrison, D. Harrison, J. Harrison, R. Shea, R. and C. Flaherty, J. Flaherty, M. Flaherty, C. Loomans, A. Spencer-Jones Harrison, K. Dalrymple, M. Harrison, B.A. Flaherty, J. Harrison, D. Hopman, K. Flaherty, H. Flaherty, and S. Flaherty 

  2. J. McGuffin, Vice President, Principal Planner - Monteith Brown Planning Consultants 

  3. (ADDED) J. Campbell 

  4. (ADDED) G. Campbell, Managing Partner - Oakleigh Holdings Inc.

6.2 Vision SOHO - Amendment to Contribution Agreement with Chelsea Green Community Homes Society

  1. S. Riggin, President - The Chelsea Green Home Society

6.3 Subsidized Transit Program Update

  1. I. Gillis 

  2. D. Perodeau 

  3. M.J. Belanger 

  4. B. Frain 

  5. F. Marr 

  6. E. Post 

  7. K. MacLennan 

  8. A. Aubrey 

  9. M. Tremblay 

  10. J. Salisbury 

  11. (ADDED) D. Slater

6.4 Draft Advocacy Message Sign By-law

  1. (ADDED) M. McCann, Leader - London Against Abortion

6.5 Renovictions - Renovation License and Relocation By-law Changes - Public Comments Received (To Date)

  1. T. Jollymore and M. Jollymore - Webster Apartments Tenants Association 

  2. C. Linton, President - Norquay Property Management Limited 

  3. K. Risler 

  4. C. Crossen

6.6 Service London Portal Request

  1. (ADDED) Councillor S. Franke

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   12th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2024-07-18 SPPC Report 12

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 12th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of items 3 (2.1), 4 (2.3), 6 (4.2) and 8 (4.4)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED Councillor J. Pribil discloses a pecuniary interest in item 2.1 having to do with Film London Review and Next Steps, by indicating that his son is contemplating seeking project support from Film London.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.2) Whole of Community System Response - Q2 Quarterly Report

Motion made by S. Lewis

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the Whole of Community System Response - Q2 Quarterly Report BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (4.1) London Transit Commission (LTC) 2023 Annual Report

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the London Transit Commission 2023 Annual Report BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (4.3) 2nd Report of the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group from its meeting held on July 15, 2024:

a)  the following actions be taken with respect to the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group’s Annual Work Plan, as amended:

ii) the draft Annual Work Plan as amended BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group received a communication dated July 12, 2024 from J. Kearon, Associate Medical Officer of Health, Middlesex-London Health Unit with respect to the proposal for alcohol sales in Municipal facilities;

b)  the following actions be taken with respect to the submission regarding revenue generating ideas from Councillor S. Franke:

i) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to forward the communication with respect to Local District Energy Systems for new subdivisions and the downtown core utilizing sewer heat exchange and renewable technologies as primary energy sources to London Hydro for their review and feedback, with a request to report back to the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group in Q4 of 2024; and

ii) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to investigate cost-saving opportunities in our tree sourcing, specifically looking at the financial cost and benefit of owning and operating or subcontracting a tree nursery and report back to the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group on the potential return on investment and long-term benefits in Q4 of 2025;

it being noted that the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group received a communication date July 7, 2024 from Councillor S. Franke with respect to this matter;

it being further noted that the Civic Administration advised the working group of a planned review of tree sourcing in 2025;

c)  clause 4.3 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.9   (4.5) Request for Recording and Livestreaming Working Group Meetings

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to record and post publicly the meetings of the Governance Working Group and the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group using the ZOOM application; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated July 4, 2024 from Councillor A. Hopkins with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.1) Film London Review and Next Steps

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to continuing Film London through the London Economic Development Corporation:

a) the report BE RECEIVED for information;

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a budget amendment for funding for Film London starting in 2025 until 2027 for consideration as part of the 2025 Budget Update process;

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to offset the costs by a reduced contribution to the Economic Development Reserve Fund and to include a review of the Film London Office in the next budget update; and

d) subject to the approval of funding through the 2025 Budget Update, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward an amending agreement to London Economic Development Corporation Purchase of Service Agreement to reflect the continuation of the Film London program.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.1.4   (2.3) 11th Report of the Governance Working Group (Relates to Bill No. 242)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 11th Report of the Governance Working Group from its meeting held on June 24, 2024:

a) the following actions be taken with respect to the report dated June 24, 2024, Councillor Role Description, as amended:

i) the document BE REVISED to include all changes as amended during the discussion;

A) that the phrase ‘Correspond with constituents in a timely manner’ BE REPLACED with the phrase ‘Communicate and follow up with residents as appropriate’;

ii) the document, as amended, BE FORWARDED to the City Manager for review;

iii) the document, attached as amended, BE REFERRED to a future Council Resourcing Review Task Force for consideration, as applicable;

b)  the following actions be taken with respect to staff report on the updated General Policy for Community Advisory Committees dated June 24, 2024:

i) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a by-law to a future meeting of Municipal Council to amend Council Procedure By-law A-50 to remove the requirement of the Striking Committee to make recommendations for appointments to Community Advisory Committees and to update the mandates of both the Corporate Services Committee and the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to reflect the change in standing committee that considers community advisory committee appointments;

ii) the balance of the report on the updated General Policy for Community Advisory Committees BE DEFERRED to the September 23, 2024 meeting of the Governance Working Group for consideration; and

iii) the associated request for delegation status from T. Khan, ITCAC Chair, BE DEFERRED to the September 23, 2024 meeting of the Governance Working Group for consideration at that time;

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

i) updates to the policy BE DEFERRED to a future meeting of the Governance Working Group;

ii) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the August 15, 2024 special meeting of the Governance Working Group with a draft terms of reference for a Council Resourcing Review Task Force, the purpose of the task force being to consider:

  •    base compensation for Council and the Mayor;

  •    compensation for additional service;

  •    an equity lens;

  •    consideration of Council severance pay;

  •    councillor role description;

  •    realistic job preview document; and

iii)  the letter from the London Police Services Board BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that members had a general discussion about a need to review how Council is resourced to perform their roles and the necessary scope of a task force to review the required resources;

it being further noted that the Governance Working Group received the attached communication from B. Brock and the following individuals made verbal presentations with respect to this matter:

M. Horak

B. Brock

M. Wallace;

d)  clauses 1.1, 2.1, 2.2 and 4.2 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a by-law to a future meeting of Municipal Council to amend CPOL.-228-480, as amended, to amend the Council Members’ Expense Policy to reduce the annual budget allocation in section 4.1 from $15,000 to $13,500 commencing in 2025;

Motion Passed (10 to 5)

Item 4, clause 2.3, as approved, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 11th Report of the Governance Working Group from its meeting held on June 24, 2024:

a) the following actions be taken with respect to the report dated June 24, 2024, Councillor Role Description, as amended:

i) the document BE REVISED to include all changes as amended during the discussion;

A) that the phrase ‘Correspond with constituents in a timely manner’ BE REPLACED with the phrase ‘Communicate and follow up with residents as appropriate’;

ii) the document, as amended, BE FORWARDED to the City Manager for review;

iii) the document, attached as amended, BE REFERRED to a future Council Resourcing Review Task Force for consideration, as applicable;

iv) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a by-law to a future meeting of Municipal Council to amend CPOL.-228-480, as amended, to amend the Council Members’ Expense Policy to reduce the annual budget allocation in section 4.1 from $15,000 to $13,500 commencing in 2025;

b)  the following actions be taken with respect to staff report on the updated General Policy for Community Advisory Committees dated June 24, 2024:

i) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a by-law to a future meeting of Municipal Council to amend Council Procedure By-law A-50 to remove the requirement of the Striking Committee to make recommendations for appointments to Community Advisory Committees and to update the mandates of both the Corporate Services Committee and the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to reflect the change in standing committee that considers community advisory committee appointments;

ii) the balance of the report on the updated General Policy for Community Advisory Committees BE DEFERRED to the September 23, 2024 meeting of the Governance Working Group for consideration; and

iii) the associated request for delegation status from T. Khan, ITCAC Chair, BE DEFERRED to the September 23, 2024 meeting of the Governance Working Group for consideration at that time;

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

i) updates to the policy BE DEFERRED to a future meeting of the Governance Working Group;

ii) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the August 15, 2024 special meeting of the Governance Working Group with a draft terms of reference for a Council Resourcing Review Task Force, the purpose of the task force being to consider:

  •    base compensation for Council and the Mayor;

  •    compensation for additional service;

  •    an equity lens;

  •    consideration of Council severance pay;

  •    councillor role description;

  •    realistic job preview document; and

iii)  the letter from the London Police Services Board BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that members had a general discussion about a need to review how Council is resourced to perform their roles and the necessary scope of a task force to review the required resources;

it being further noted that the Governance Working Group received the attached communication from B. Brock and the following individuals made verbal presentations with respect to this matter:

M. Horak

B. Brock

M. Wallace;

d)  clauses 1.1, 2.1, 2.2 and 4.2 BE RECEIVED

8.1.6   (4.2) 1st Report of the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group

At 2:11 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor S. Lehman in the Chair. 

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

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 1st Report of the Strategic Opportunities Review Working from its meeting held on June 26, 2024:

a) the following actions be taken with respect to the Community Grants - Neighbourhood Decision Making communication received from Deputy Mayor S. Lewis and Councillor S. Lehman dated June 14, 2024, as amended:

i) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a Budget Amendment to the 2025 Annual Budget Update for the Mayor’s consideration to reflect the following:

A) the London Community Grants, annual Grassroots, Innovation, and Capital Grants stream for the 2025, 2026, and 2027 years to be funded to a maximum of $250,000/year through the Community Investment Reserve Fund while the program is undergoing further review. It being noted that this funding is contingent on the Community Investment Reserve Fund having a minimum remaining balance as of December 31st of each year of at least $1M; and

ii) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a comprehensive review of the London Community Grants Program, including the multi-year stream and the Neighbourhood Decision Making Program and bring forward a report prior to the end of Q2, 2027 with options for consideration on rightsizing and scope of these programs; including the alignment or conflict of NDM with regard to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and new Parks Reserve Fund, should Council choose to reinitiate the programs for the 2028-2031 Multi-Year Budget;

iii) the delegation requests from N. Karsch, M. Cassidy, S. J. Taylor, R. Bloomfield and B. Samuels BE REFERRED to the July 18, 2024 meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for consideration, it being noted that the City Clerk’s Office will reach out to the requesters;

it being noted that the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group received communications from the following individuals with respect to this matter:

  •    N. Karsch, Director of Programs, London Environmental Network;

  •    M. Cassidy, CEO, Pillar Nonprofit Network;

  •    S. J. Taylor, Nonprofit Manager, Social Impact Consultant, MA, Candidate;

  •    R. Bloomfield; 

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

  •    Members of the Executive Committee, Orchard Park/Sherwood Forest Neighborhood Association;

  •    C. Callandar, Executive Director, Meals on Wheels London;

  •    A. Heartsong;

  •    K. Ledgley, Executive Director, London Children’s Museum;

  •    J. Stewart, Resident of London;

  •    M. A. Hodge, Climate Action London; and

  •    H. Rajani;

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee about the suggestion to engage with KPMG LLP for the delivery of service review training for the City’s Agencies, Boards and Commissions, with the cost to be funded from the Efficiency, Effectiveness and Economy (EEE) Reserve;

c) the following actions be taken with respect to the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group’s Annual Work Plan, as amended:

i) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the September meeting of the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group with respect to the London Police Services Reserve Fund on potential opportunities for the consideration of this working group, including potential changes to the associated by-law, as required;

ii) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the September meeting of the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group about the potential for partnerships in municipal golf;

iii) the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to attend the July 15, 2024 meeting of the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group to discuss the City’s policy and general information related to venue naming rights with respect to any potential for revenue generation; 

iv) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on the potential to license City facilities for the sale of alcohol as a revenue stream, including a list of potential facilities;

v) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back in the first quarter of 2025 with potential options for Council’s consideration with respect to the Surplus Deficit Policy;

d) clause 4.4 BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard delegations from the following individuals:

A. Fleet, Executive Director, Growing Chefs! Ontario;

M. Cassidy, CEO, Pillar Nonprofit Network;

R. Bloomfield;

B. Samuels;

N. Karsch, Director of Programs, London Environmental Network;

L. Bowden;

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

K. Creighton, Director Sustainability and A. Robinson, Green Economy London Coordinator, London Environmental Network;

it being further noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received communications from the following individuals:

M. Rumas;

B. Stephenson;

A. Badillo, Executive Director and J. Horrell, President, Urban Roots London;

C. Walters, CEO, Alzheimer Society Southwest Partners

G. Henderson, CEO, London Chamber of Commerce;

M. Pridding;

Councillor C. Rahman and Deputy Mayor S. Lewis; 

M. Romain;

W. Arnott, Interim Executive Director, Humane Society London & Middlesex;

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

Motion Passed (10 to 5)

Motion made by J. Pribil

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on the potential to eliminate snow plowing of sidewalks on residential class streets by passing a by-law requiring property owners to clear the sidewalk along their property;

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lehman

That in lieu of the current Neighbourhood Decision Making Program, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to explore options to fund parks improvements through a participatory decision-making model through the Get Involved program while a parks improvement project moves forward. This initiative is to be funded through the Community Investment Reserve Fund with a maximum of $25,000 per parks project and an annual total of $125,000 for 2025, 2026, and 2027. It being noted that this funding is contingent on the Community Investment Reserve Fund having a minimum remaining balance as of December 31st of each year of at least $1M;

Motion Failed (3 to 12)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a Business Case to the Annual Budget Update for the Mayor’s consideration to pause funding for the Neighbourhood Decision Making program for the remainder of the 2025-2027 Multi-Year Budget.

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

Item 6, clause 4.2, as approved, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 1st Report of the Strategic Opportunities Review Working from its meeting held on June 26, 2024:

a) the following actions be taken with respect to the Community Grants - Neighbourhood Decision Making communication received from Deputy Mayor S. Lewis and Councillor S. Lehman dated June 14, 2024, as amended:

i) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a Budget Amendment to the 2025 Annual Budget Update for the Mayor’s consideration to reflect the following:

A) the London Community Grants, annual Grassroots, Innovation, and Capital Grants stream for the 2025, 2026, and 2027 years to be funded to a maximum of $250,000/year through the Community Investment Reserve Fund while the program is undergoing further review. It being noted that this funding is contingent on the Community Investment Reserve Fund having a minimum remaining balance as of December 31st of each year of at least $1M; and

B) to pause funding for the Neighbourhood Decision Making program for the remainder of the 2025-2027 Multi-Year Budget;

ii) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a comprehensive review of the London Community Grants Program, including the multi-year stream and the Neighbourhood Decision Making Program and bring forward a report prior to the end of Q2, 2027 with options for consideration on rightsizing and scope of these programs; including the alignment or conflict of NDM with regard to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and new Parks Reserve Fund, should Council choose to reinitiate the programs for the 2028-2031 Multi-Year Budget;

iii) the delegation requests from N. Karsch, M. Cassidy, S. J. Taylor, R. Bloomfield and B. Samuels BE REFERRED to the July 18, 2024 meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for consideration, it being noted that the City Clerk’s Office will reach out to the requesters;

it being noted that the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group received communications from the following individuals with respect to this matter:

  •    N. Karsch, Director of Programs, London Environmental Network;

  •    M. Cassidy, CEO, Pillar Nonprofit Network;

  •    S. J. Taylor, Nonprofit Manager, Social Impact Consultant, MA, Candidate;

  •    R. Bloomfield; 

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

  •    Members of the Executive Committee, Orchard Park/Sherwood Forest Neighborhood Association;

  •    C. Callandar, Executive Director, Meals on Wheels London;

  •    A. Heartsong;

  •    K. Ledgley, Executive Director, London Children’s Museum;

  •    J. Stewart, Resident of London;

  •    M. A. Hodge, Climate Action London; and

  •    H. Rajani;

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee about the suggestion to engage with KPMG LLP for the delivery of service review training for the City’s Agencies, Boards and Commissions, with the cost to be funded from the Efficiency, Effectiveness and Economy (EEE) Reserve;

c) the following actions be taken with respect to the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group’s Annual Work Plan, as amended:

i) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the September meeting of the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group with respect to the London Police Services Reserve Fund on potential opportunities for the consideration of this working group, including potential changes to the associated by-law, as required;

ii) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the September meeting of the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group about the potential for partnerships in municipal golf;

iii) the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to attend the July 15, 2024 meeting of the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group to discuss the City’s policy and general information related to venue naming rights with respect to any potential for revenue generation; 

iv) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on the potential to license City facilities for the sale of alcohol as a revenue stream, including a list of potential facilities;

v) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back in the first quarter of 2025 with potential options for Council’s consideration with respect to the Surplus Deficit Policy;

d) clause 4.4 BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard delegations from the following individuals:

A. Fleet, Executive Director, Growing Chefs! Ontario;

M. Cassidy, CEO, Pillar Nonprofit Network;

R. Bloomfield;

B. Samuels;

N. Karsch, Director of Programs, London Environmental Network;

L. Bowden;

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

K. Creighton, Director Sustainability and A. Robinson, Green Economy London Coordinator, London Environmental Network;

it being further noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received communications from the following individuals:

M. Rumas;

B. Stephenson;

A. Badillo, Executive Director and J. Horrell, President, Urban Roots London;

C. Walters, CEO, Alzheimer Society Southwest Partners

G. Henderson, CEO, London Chamber of Commerce;

M. Pridding;

Councillor C. Rahman and Deputy Mayor S. Lewis; 

M. Romain;

W. Arnott, Interim Executive Director, Humane Society London & Middlesex;

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

8.1.8   (4.4) SS-2024-237 Single Source Award for Year-Round Ark Aid Mission Strategy

2024-07-23 Submission - SS-2024-237 Single Source Award-Ark Aid Final Budgets

At 2:40 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor S. Lehman in the Chair. 

At 2:43 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the July 18, 2024, SS-2024-237 Single Source Award for Year-Round Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. Strategy report;

a)    a single source award to Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. BE APPROVED, as per Section 14.4 e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, to provide Year-Round Stable Responsive Services for an initial period of August 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024, with options to renew for two (2) additional years;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to reallocate $1,800,000 of the previously approved one-time funding from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve (approved by Council on February 13, 2024) to fund the Year-Round Stable Responsive Services for an initial period of August 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024;

i)    that Ark Aid Street Mission Inc.’s budget for the $1.8M single source award be distributed to Council and attached to the Council agenda;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a budget amendment for consideration through the 2025 Budget Update process for funding in 2025 and future years;

d)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in relation to this project;

e)    the approval given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London entering into a new and/or amending the existing Purchase of Service Agreement with Ark Aid Street Mission Inc.;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard verbal delegations from S. Campbell, Executive Director, Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. and K. Morrison, General Manager, Old East Village BIA with respect to this matter;

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

H. Benedict, E. Campbell and H Hodgins from Ark Aid Street Mission Inc.; Rev. Dr. J. Laurence, Minister of Worship and Congregational Life, First-St. Andrew’s United Church;

Rev. J. Prince; 

B. Wood, Office Admin. WOUC;

D. Astolfi, VP, Supportive Housing & Program Development, CMHA Thames Valley Addiction & Mental Health Services; and 

S. Omonfoman.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following motion BE APPROVED

f)     the Mayor BE REQUESTED to advocate the Provincial and Federal governments to offset the costs that could be incurred related to the award to the Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. Year-Round Stable Responsive Services strategy in the 2025 budget year and beyond; and

g)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to engage with the Old East Village BIA, local residents and Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. to review the Year-Round Stable Responsive Services strategy;

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 8, clause 4.4, as approved, reads as follows

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the July 18, 2024, SS-2024-237 Single Source Award for Year-Round Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. Strategy report;

a)    a single source award to Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. BE APPROVED, as per Section 14.4 e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, to provide Year-Round Stable Responsive Services for an initial period of August 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024, with options to renew for two (2) additional years;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to reallocate $1,800,000 of the previously approved one-time funding from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve (approved by Council on February 13, 2024) to fund the Year-Round Stable Responsive Services for an initial period of August 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024;

i)    that Ark Aid Street Mission Inc.’s budget for the $1.8M single source award be distributed to Council and attached to the Council minutes;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a budget amendment for consideration through the 2025 Budget Update process for funding in 2025 and future years;

d)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in relation to this project;

e)    the approval given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London entering into a new and/or amending the existing Purchase of Service Agreement with Ark Aid Street Mission Inc.;

f)     the Mayor BE REQUESTED to advocate the Provincial and Federal governments to offset the costs that could be incurred related to the award to the Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. Year-Round Stable Responsive Services strategy in the 2025 budget year and beyond; and

g)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to engage with the Old East Village BIA, local residents and Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. to review the Year-Round Stable Responsive Services strategy;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard verbal delegations from S. Campbell, Executive Director, Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. and K. Morrison, General Manager, Old East Village BIA with respect to this matter;

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

H. Benedict, E. Campbell and H Hodgins from Ark Aid Street Mission Inc.; Rev. Dr. J. Laurence, Minister of Worship and Congregational Life, First-St. Andrew’s United Church;

Rev. J. Prince; 

B. Wood, Office Admin. WOUC;

D. Astolfi, VP, Supportive Housing & Program Development, CMHA Thames Valley Addiction & Mental Health Services; and 

S. Omonfoman.

8.2   11th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2024-07-16 PEC REPORT - FULL

At 2:57 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor C. Rahman in the Chair. 

At 2:58 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the11th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of item 4 (2.3) and 10 (3.3)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) Quarterly Heritage Report – Q2 2024

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the staff report dated July 16, 2024 entitled “Quarterly Heritage Report - Q2 2024” BE RECEIVED for information. (2024-R01)

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) Planning & Development and Building Housing Update – 2024 Year-To-Date

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the staff report dated July 16, 2024 entitled “Planning and Development and Building Housing Update - 2024 Year-To-Date” BE RECEIVED for information. (2024-S11)

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (2.4) Building Division Detailed Update: 2024 Year-To-Date

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the staff report dated July 16, 2024 entitled “Building Division Detailed Update: 2024 Year-To-Date” BE RECEIVED for information.  (2024-S11)

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (2.5) Draft Site Alteration By-law

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the staff report dated July 16, 2024 entitled “Draft Site Alteration By-law” BE RECEIVED for information.  (2024-C01)

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (2.6) Information Report of Bill 185, the Cutting Red Tape to Build MoreHomes Act, 2024

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the staff report dated July 16, 2024 entitled “Information Report of Bill 185, the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024” BE RECEIVED for information.  (2024-S11)

Motion Passed

8.2.8   (3.1) Incentivizing Office-to-Residential Conversions in Downtown

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to offering financial incentives to support office-to-residential conversions in downtown:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to amend the Downtown Community Improvement Plan Financial Incentive Program Guidelines to introduce the following financial incentive programs focused on downtown office-to-residential conversion projects:

i)    Feasibility Study Grant Program;

ii)    Construction Conversion Grant Program with a maximum grant of $35,000 per unit; and,

iii)    Application Fees Exemption Program;

iv)    amend the existing Office-to-Residential Conversion Grant program to reflect the revised maximum grant value of $35,000 per unit (without differentiating by the number of bedrooms) and remove the $2 million cap per property;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to amend the existing Office-to-Residential Conversion Grant Program in the Downtown Community Improvement Plan Financial Incentive Program Guidelines to increase the amount of the grant per residential unit to match the proposed new program in recommendation a) ii);

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to amend its agreement with 166 Dundas St London Inc. by $110,053 to adjust for the increased per residential unit grant value to be implemented subject to Municipal Council approval of recommendation a) ii);

d)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to amend its agreements with any future applicants that receive an Office-to-Residential Conversion Grant prior to the new Construction Conversion Grant Program being approved, to adjust for the increased per residential unit grant value to be implemented subject to Municipal Council approval of recommendation a) ii); and,

e)    the report entitled “City of London Office to Residential (OTR) Conversion Financial Incentive Program(s) (OTR-CFIP)” from Urban Insights Inc. appended to the staff report dated July 16, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE RECEIVED;

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

  •    a presentation from Urban Insights; and,

  •    a communication dated July 12, 2024 from M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute requesting delegation status;

it being also noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard a delegation from M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute, with respect to these matters;

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-S12)

Motion Passed

8.2.9   (3.2) 1 Fallons Lane (Z-9728) (Relates to Bill No. 255)

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 Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of London Ontario, (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd., relating to the property located at 1 Fallons Lane:

a)    the proposed attached revised by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 23, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Neighbourhood Facility (NF1) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_)) Zone;

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

i)    the Owner shall provide two (2) additional tree plantings along the Huron Street frontage in addition to the minimum requirements of the Site Plan Control By-law;

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.; and,

  •    E. Norris;

  •    L. MacKenzie, Chair, Affordable Housing Committee, Society of St. Vincent de Paul London;

  •    L. Dollard, President, Society of St. Vincent de Paul National Council of Canada; and,

  •    J. Ketelaars, President, St. Vincent de Paul Society, London Particular Council;

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

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment support’s Council’s commitment to increase housing supply and affordability, and initiatives related to the Housing Accelerator Fund that will support the creation of affordable housing units;

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

Motion Passed

8.2.11   (3.4) 3392 Wonderland Road South (OZ-9730) (Relates to Bills No. 244 and 257)

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 Old Oak Properties Inc., (c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design), relating to the property located at 3392 Wonderland Road South:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 23, 2024, to:

i)    amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING new policies to the Specific Area Policies for the Shopping Area Place Type and the Neighbourhoods Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan; and,

ii)    amend the Southwest Area Secondary Plan (SWAP), forming part of the Official Plan, by ADDING a site-specific policy to the Wonderland Road Community Enterprise Corridor and Medium Density Residential policies in the Wonderland Boulevard Neighbourhood;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the Planning and Environment Committee Added Agenda as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 23, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 as amended in part a) above), FROM a Light Industrial (LI1/LI7) Zone, an Environmental Review (ER) Zone, and an Open Space (OS4) Zone TO a Light Industrial Special Provision/Restrictive Service Commercial Special Provision (LI1()/LI7()/RSC2()/RSC3()/ RSC4/RSC5(_)) Zone and an Open Space /(OS4) Zone; 

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

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020;

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.2.12   (3.5) 1458 Huron Street (Z-9743) (Relates to Bill No. 258)

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 OMNI Developments Inc., (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the property located at 1458 Huron Street & 39 Redwood Lane:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 16, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 23, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-4) Zone TO a Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(_)) Zone;

b)    Notice BE GIVEN under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O 1990, c. O. 18, of Municipal Council’s intention to designate the property to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix G of the associated staff report;

c)    should no objections to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a by-law to designate the property at 1458 Huron Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in Appendix G of the associated staff report BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of Municipal Council within 90 days of the end of the objection period;

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

i)    orient front doors of units towards Huron Street, limit fencing and provide access to the public sidewalk;

ii)    provide privacy fencing along shared property lines with low-rise residential uses; and,

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

e)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the recommended amendment is reflective of the proposed development circulated in the Notice of Application and Notice of Public Meeting, including the driveway access at 39 Redwood Lane;

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

  •    a communication from M. Whalley, Board Member, on behalf of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, London Region Branch;

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

  •    C. McAllister, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

  •    J. Ferrari;

  •    Natalia;

  •    L. Glad;

  •    B. Durham;

  •    L. Ferrari; and,

  •    R. Tembo;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment would permit a 22-unit townhouse development at an intensity that is appropriate for the site and the surrounding neighbourhood; and,

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

it being further noted that should an objection to Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a subsequent staff report will be prepared;

it being also noted that should an appeal to the passage of the heritage designating by-law be received, the City Clerk will refer the appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal;

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

Motion Passed

8.2.13   (3.6) 1105 Wellington Road (OZ-9725) (Relates to Bills No. 245 and 259)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the application by White Oaks Shopping Centre Inc., relating to the property located at 1105 Wellington Road:

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

b)    the proposed attached, revised by-law as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 23, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in a) above), FROM Regional Shopping Area (RSA4) Zone TO a Regional Shopping Area/Residential R10 Special Provision (RSA4/R10-5(_)H115D750) Zone;

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

i)    provide an adequately sized and centrally located outdoor amenity space, either at-grade or rooftop, or a combination of both;

ii)    details regarding garbage storage and collection be determined;

iii)    details regarding the inclusion of a paratransit layby be determined;

iv)    landscaping to include at minimum 50% native species, with no invasive species planted;

v)    investigate renewable sources of energy such as solar for the roof and sides of the building, and geothermal for interior heating and cooling;

vi)    investigate air source heat pump options; and,

vii)    utilize bird friendly policies using the CSA standard;

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

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

  •    a presentation from P. Kitson, Vice President, Planning and Development, Westdell Development Corporation;

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;

  •    L. Goddard; and,

  •    C. Ironside;

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; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates intensification of an underutilized site at an intensity appropriate for a Transit Village Place Type;

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

8.2.14   (3.7) 934 Oxford Street West (Z-9733) (Relates to Bill No. 260)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by 2419361 Ontario Inc., relating to the property located at 934 Oxford Street West, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 16, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 23, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-10) Zone TO a Holding Residential R8 Special Provision (h-89*R8-4(_)) Zone;

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

  •    a communication dated July 12, 2024 from R. and J. Melvin;

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

  •    A. Youssef;

  •    A. Smye; and,

  •    A. Mohseni-Khalesi;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment 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

8.2.15   (3.8) 359 Wellington Road and 657 Base Line Road East (Z-9719) (Relates to Bills No. 246 and 261)

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 LJM Developments Ltd., (c/o A.J. Clarke & Associates Ltd.), relating to the property located at 359 Wellington Road and 657 Base Line Road East:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 16, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 23, 2024, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Rapid Transit Corridor 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 July 16, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 23, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential/Bonus (R1-6*B-43) Zone and Automobile Service Station (SS1) Zone, TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-7(_)) Zone;

c)    the requested Special Provision to reduce the required bicycle parking ratio from 1.0 spaces per unit to 0.7 spaces per unit BE REFUSED for the following reason:

i)    the inability to accommodate bicycle parking for all units signifies an over-intensification of the site and does not promote the use of active transportation to residents;

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

i)    consultation with the Municipal Housing Development division for the provision of three (3) or more affordable units;

ii)    landscaping to include at minimum 50% native species, with no invasive species planted;

iii)    investigate renewable sources of energy such as solar for the roof and sides of the building, and geothermal for interior heating and cooling;

iv)    investigate air source heat pump options;

v)    include a minimum of 5% EV charging spots roughed in;

vi)    utilize bird friendly policies using the CSA standard;

vii)    provide a minimum 50% transparent glazing on the first storey facing public streets and multiple pedestrian connections from the building to the public sidewalks to promote walkability and transit usage;

viii)    provide building articulation and stepbacks to create a human scale and mitigate impacts of the tall building;

ix)    provide weather protection and implement the recommendations of the wind study to ensure a comfortable pedestrian environment;

x)    explore opportunities to increase the amount of outdoor amenity space; and,

xi)    update the Traffic Impact Assessment and implement recommendations, including access restrictions;

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

  •    a presentation from F. Kloibhofer, A.J. Clarke and Associates Ltd.;

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

  •    F. Kloibhofer, A.J. Clarke and Associates Ltd.; and,

  •    J. Herbert;

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

  •    the amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS), which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment, promote transit-supportive development and support long-term economic prosperity;

  •    the amendments conform to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design and Building policies, and the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type policies; and will facilitate a built form that contributes to achieving a compact 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 a 23-storey, 250-unit apartment building in a form 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

8.2.16   (3.9) 1725-1737 Richmond Street (Z-9741) (Relates to Bill No. 262)

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 of Richmond Hyland Inc. c/o Paul Kitson, Westdell Development Corporation, relating to the property located at 1727-1737 Richmond Street:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 16, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 23, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (ASA1(5)/ASA2(3)/ASA3(1)) Zone and an Associated Shopping Area Commercial Special Provision (ASA1(5)/ ASA2(3)/ASA3(15)) Zone TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC1(*)) Zone and a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC1(**)) Zone;

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

i)    details regarding a paratransit layby for Tower 3, separate from the one provided for Tower 1, be determined;

ii)    explore options to provide a common outdoor amenity space for Tower 2 suitable in size with features to accommodate the anticipated population of this tower. As the proposal is currently overparked, consider redesigning the surface parking area to replace parking spaces with amenity space, while maintaining access to the structured parking;

iii)    provide a north-south pedestrian connection internal to the site from the proposed to the existing commercial buildings to the south; 

iv)    explore options to provide a common outdoor amenity space suitable in size and features to accommodate the anticipated population of Tower 3;

v)    update the Shadow Study to include existing and proposed buildings in Phases 1, 2 & 3; 

vi)    incorporate a creative architectural treatment around the structured parking in the podium of Tower 2;

vii)    incorporate green infrastructure and/or features for Low Impact Development (LID) into the site design.

viii)    consider alternative options for the design of the parking garage ramp for Tower 3;

ix)    update the existing Transportation Impact assessment with additional vehicle turning analysis for Tower 3 ramp and garage exit; Review access management for the North Centre Road driveway;

x)    details regarding parkland dedication in the amount of 0.5 ha of land, in accordance with the Masonville Secondary Plan, be determined;

xi)    landscaping to include at minimum 50% native species, with no invasive species planted;

xii)    investigate renewable sources of energy such as solar for the roof and sides of the building, and geothermal for interior heating and cooling;

xiii)    investigate air source heat pump options; and,

xiv)    utilize bird friendly policies using the CSA standard;

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

  •    L. Jamieson, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; and,

  •    A. Mustard-Thompson;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment is in conformity with the in-force policies of the Masonville Secondary Plan;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the in-force policies of The London Plan including but not limited to, Our City, Key Directions, City Building, and the Transit Village Place Type, and will facilitate a built form that contributes to achieving a compact, mixed-use city; and,

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

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

8.2.17   (4.1) Centennial Central Public School Sanitary Service Connection

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the request from the Municipality of Middlesex Centre and the Thames Valley District School Board regarding sanitary servicing for Centennial Central Public School:

a)    authority BE DELEGATED to the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, to approve an agreement between the City and the Thames Valley District School Board for the provision of sanitary servicing to Centennial Central Public School;

b)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the Agreement approved by the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure; and,

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

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

  •    a communication dated July 8, 2024 from G. Vogt, Superintendent, Facility Services and Capital Planning, Thames Valley District School Board; and,

  •    a communication dated July 8, 2024 from R. Cascaden, Director of Public Works and Engineering, Municipality of Middlesex Centre;

it being further noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard verbal delegations from the following in conjunction with these matters:

  •    G. Vogt, Superintendent, Facility Services and Capital Planning, Thames Valley District School Board; and,

  •    S. Bergman, Planner, Municipality of Middlesex Centre.

Motion Passed

8.2.18   (4.2) Middlesex Centre Sanitary Servicing Agreement, 2000

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, BE REQUESTED to report back with an analysis of the Sanitary Servicing Agreement request made by the Municipality of Middlesex Centre, including planning, technical, and financial considerations;

it being pointed out that the Planning and Environment Committee heard a verbal delegation from S. Bergman, Planner, Municipality of Middlesex Centre, with respect to these matters;

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

  •    a communication dated July 8, 2024, from A. DeViet, Mayor, Municipality of Middlesex Centre.

Motion Passed

8.2.19   (4.3) Urban Forest Canopy - Councillor S. Franke and Councillor C. Rahman

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, the following matters be included on the Planning and Environment Committee Deferred Matters List:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide information and associated recommended actions on the following matters in Q4 of 2024:

i)    Urban Forestry Strategy Monitoring Report:

A)    a status update of initiatives identified in the Urban Forestry Strategy Implementation Plan; 

B)    the requirements to effect The London Plan policies for tree replanting and/or compensation with development applications; 

C)    opportunities to establish large designed planting sites (e.g., an arboretum or new woodland habitat); and,

D)    opportunities to require better soil amendments in new developments;

 

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide information and associated recommended actions on the following matters in Q4 of 2024:

i)    Tree Planting Strategy: 

A)    updated policies and numerical standards related to resident input for boulevard tree planting, soil suitability for boulevard tree planting, and selection of tree species to be planted; 

B)    specific planting targets for geographic areas of the City; and, 

C)    additional planting opportunities on City-owned lands and partnerships with consenting institutional land owners (e.g., schools, hospitals, universities, colleges, etc.);

c)    the Civic Administration engage where applicable in stakeholder consultation on these items, including engaging the general public, local agencies, relevant advisory committees and the development industry.  (2024-E04)

Motion Passed

8.2.20   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the July 16, 2024 Deferred Matters List BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.21   (5.2) 7th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 7th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on July 10, 2024 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.3) The London Plan Heights Review

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the staff report dated July 16, 2024 entitled “The London Plan Heights Review” BE RECEIVED for information. (2024-D22)

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

8.2.10   (3.3) 3614, 3630 Colonel Talbot Road and 6621 Pack Road (Z-8720) (Relates to Bill No. 256)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by Sifton Properties Limited, relating to the property located at 3614, 3630 Colonel Talbot Road and 6621 Pack Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated July 16, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 23, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR4) Zone TO a  Residential R1 Special Provision (R1-4())Zone; two  Residential R1 and R4 Special Provision (R1-4/R4-6(11) Zones; two Residential R1 and R4 Special Provision (R1-4()/R4-6(11) Zones; two Residential R4, R5, R6, R7 and R9 Special Provision (R4-6(11)/R5-7()/R6-5()/R7()/R9-5()) Zones; a Neighbourhood Facility, R4, R5, R6, R7 and R9 (NF/R4-6(11)/R5-7()/R6-5()/R7()/R9-5()) Zone; and an Open Space (OS1) Zone;

b)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public participation meeting with respect to the application for Draft Plan of Residential Subdivision relating to the properties located at located at 3614, 3630 Colonel Talbot Road and 6621 Pack Road:

i)    expressing concern with the lack of details provided on the zoning categories for each Block;

ii)    indicating that there is a large difference in the number of parking spaces required for each zone; noting that you need a vehicle to get around this area;

iii)    advising that there are right out, right in restrictions which is a safety hazard;

iv)    outlining that the lack of detail for the adjacent property as the property is landlocked by the east and the south;

v)    the developer is asking for a relaxation of setbacks and lot sizes compared to similar zoning of the same category;

vi)    requesting to go on record as objecting to any relaxation of setbacks and lot sizes;

vii)    reiterating the City of London wording of “The successful completion of the Southwest Area Planning Area depends on the cooperation of the owners and land developers to share in the equitable and fair distribution” of the use of the land;

viii)    indicating that the Phase 1 of the application cannot be completed in isolation and that Phase 2 has implications to a neighbouring property; and,

ix)    requesting that the application be refused until environmental and planning connectivity concerns are resolved;

c)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following:

i)    provision of short-term public bicycle parking in the development of each block through the site plan process; and,

ii)    street oriented design and safe and accessible pedestrian connections;

d)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of residential subdivision subject to draft plan conditions recommended by the Approval Authority, submitted by Sifton Properties Limited (File No. 39T-16509),  prepared by Sifton Properties Limited,  Drawing No. 1, dated October 25, 2023, which shows a draft plan of subdivision consisting of twelve (12) single detached lots (Lots 1 to 12), five (5) medium density residential blocks (Blocks 13 to 17), one (1) parkland block (Block 18), one (1) school/medium density residential block (Block 19), one (1) future development block (Block 20), and six (6) road widening and reserve blocks, all serviced by three (3) new streets (Street A, B and C);

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

  •    a communication dated July 5, 2024 from R. Uukkivi, Partner, Cassels;

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

  •    M. Paluch, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants; 

  •    G. Dietz;

  •    M. Harrison; 

  •    G. Campbell;

  •    J. Campbell;

  •    M.A. Harrison;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the Southwest Area Secondary Plan; and,

  •    the recommended amendment will permit development that is considered appropriate and compatible with the existing and future land uses surrounding the subject lands;

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

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.3   12th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2024-07-17 CSC Report 12

Motion made by H. McAlister

That the 12th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by H. McAlister

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) Municipal Funding Agreement on the Canada Community-Building Fund (Relates to Bill No. 238)

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the Municipal Funding Agreement on the Canada Community-Building Fund:

a)   the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 23, 2024, to:

i)    approve the Municipal Funding Agreement (“Agreement”) on the Canada Community-Building Fund between the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and The Corporation of the City of London attached as Schedule 1;

ii)    authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement;

iii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports to approve any future amending agreements between the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and The Corporation of the City of London with respect to the Canada Community-Building Fund;

iv)    authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute any future amending agreements between the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and The Corporation of the City of London with respect to the Canada Community-Building Fund approved by the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports;

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

vi)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports (or designate) to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this Agreement;

b)     the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) 2023 Portfolio Investments Report

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the 2023 Portfolio Investments Report, providing a summary of the performance of the City of London’s investments, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.3) City of London Vacant Residential Property Study

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the consideration to implement a vacant home tax in London:

a)    the “City of London Vacant Residential Unit Study – Vacant Home Tax Feasibility Review Report” (Appendix “A” as appended to the staff report) BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the Civic Administration TAKE NO FURTHER ACTION towards implementation of a Vacant Home Tax using the mandatory declaration model at this time; and

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to further investigate the alternative strategies identified in the study to reduce the number of vacant residential units.

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.4) Transfer of Part lll and Part lX Prosecutions from the Province of Ontario, Ministry of the Attorney General to The Corporation of the City of London (Relates to Bill No. 239)

Motion made by H. McAlister

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Legal Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the transfer of Part III and Part IX prosecutions from the Province of Ontario, Ministry of the Attorney General:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 23, 2024, to:

i)    approve the Interim Transfer Agreement between His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Attorney General and the Corporation of the City of London related to the transfer of responsibility for certain prosecutions under Parts III and IX of the Provincial Offences Act (“Agreement”) appended to the staff report as Schedule “A”;

ii)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Legal Services to approve any future amending agreements related to the Agreement; and

iii)    authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all agreements between the City and the Province, and any other documents as may be required from time to time related to the transfer of certain prosecutions commenced under Parts III and IX of the Provincial Offences Act from the Ministry of the Attorney General to the City of London, each in a form satisfactory to the Deputy City Manager, Legal Services;

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

c)    the report BE RECEIVED for the consideration of Council.

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (2.5) Ministry of Transportation DriveON Program (Relates to Bill No. 240)

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Managers of Finance Supports, and Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken:

a)    the DriveON Program Performance Contract between His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards, Ministry of Transportation and the Corporation of the City of London BE APPROVED to facilitate the City’s participation in the Ontario Ministry of Transportation’s DriveON Emissions and Safety Inspection Program;

b)    a Sole Source procurement in accordance with Section 14.3 (c) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy BE APPROVED with Parsons Inc. in relation to an Equipment Purchase and Maintenance Agreement and Pre-Authorized Debit Agreement required as a condition of transitioning to the DriveON Program;

c)    the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, or designate, BE AUTHORIZED to execute the above agreements and to approve and execute any amending or other agreements necessary to facilitate the City’s transition to the DriveON Program;

d)    the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or designate, BE AUTHORIZED to execute the above agreements and to approve and execute any amending or other agreements necessary to facilitate the City’s transition to the DriveON Program; and

e)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated July 17, 2024 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Council meeting to be held on July 23, 2024 to authorize the foregoing and direct the Civic Administration to carry out all necessary administrative actions in connection with the DriveON Program.

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (2.6) London Representation at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) - Councillor S. Franke and Mayor J. Morgan

Motion made by H. McAlister

That the communication dated July 8, 2024 from Councillor S. Franke and Mayor J. Morgan with respect to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities annual conference held on June 6-9, 2024 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4   9th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2024-07-15 CPSC Report

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 9th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of items 8 (2.8), 12 (2.11), 13 (3.1) and 14 (4.1)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the Council recess at this time, for 10 minutes.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

The Council recesses at 3:04 PM and reconvenes at 3:16 PM.

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) 2025 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List - Call for Nominations

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the communication, dated June 27, 2024, from the City Clerk and the Deputy City Clerks, with respect to the 2025 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List Call for Nominations, BE RECEIVED. (2024-M11)

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.2) 6th and 7th Reports of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 6th and 7th Reports of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee (AWCAC):

a)    the following actions be taken with respect to the 6th Report of the AWCAC, from the meeting held on June 6, 2024:

i)    the following actions be taken with respect to Rodenticide use in City facilities:

A)    the Senior Manager of Facilities BE INVITED to attend a future Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee meeting prior to the City renewing its contract for pest control service in 2025 to review the scope of the contract and discuss alternative strategies to use of poison at municipal facilities; and,

B)    a Working Group BE ESTABLISHED to prepare recommendations for print and online communications to support public education about best practices to prevent rodent infestations and apply rodent exclusion methods at residential buildings;

it being noted that the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee received a communication from the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee and the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee and held a general discussion with respect to these matters;

ii)    clauses 1.1, 3.1, 5.1, 5.2 and 5.4 to 5.6 BE RECEIVED;

b)    the 7th Report of the AWCAC from the meeting held on July 4, 2024 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.3) 3rd Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 3rd Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on June 27, 2024, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (2.4) RFP-2024-100 Prime Consulting Services for CHOCC Teaching Kitchen and Elevator

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports and Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated July 15, 2024, related to RFP-2024-100 Prime Consulting Services for CHOCC Teaching Kitchen and Elevator:

a)    the proposal submitted by 17\21 architects inc., 1065 Valetta St, London, for the Prime Consultant Services for CHOCC Teaching Kitchen and Elevator project for a fee of $152,015.00 (excluding HST) BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the evaluation team determined the proposal submitted by 17\21 architects inc. provided the best technical and financial value to the Corporation, met the City’s requirements in all areas and acceptance is in accordance with section 15.2 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 administrative acts which are necessary in connection with the project;

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 a contract or any other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-A19)

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (2.5) RFP-2024-135 Prime Consulting Services for Kinsmen Arena Deep Energy Retrofit

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports and Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated July 15, 2024, related to RFP-2024-135 Prime Consulting Services for Kinsmen Arena Deep Energy Retrofit:

a)    the proposal submitted by J.L. Richards & Associates Limited, 450 Speedvale Avenue West, Suite 107 in Guelph, for the Prime Consultant Services for the Kinsmen Arena Deep Energy Retrofit project for a fee of $199,595.00 (excluding HST) BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the evaluation team determined the proposal submitted by J.L. Richards & Associates Limited provided the best technical and financial value to the Corporation, met the City’s requirements in all areas and acceptance is in accordance with section 15.2 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 administrative acts which are necessary in connection with the project;

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 a contract or any other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-A19)

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (2.7) Administrative Monetary Penalty (AMPS) By-law - Housekeeping Amendments (Relates to Bills No. 243 and 248)

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 July 15, 2024, related to Administrative Monetary Penalty (AMPS) By-law Housekeeping Amendments:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 23, 2024, to amend By-law No. A-54, being “A by-law to implement an Administrative Monetary Penalty System in London”; 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 July 23, 2024, to amend By-law No. PW-11, being “A by-law to provide for the sale of fireworks and the setting off of fireworks and pyrotechnics within the City of London, and for requiring a permit and imposing conditions”. (2024-C01)

Motion Passed

8.4.9   (2.10) Affordable Residential Unit Development Charge Exemption Agreements (Relates to Bill No. 237)

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 July 15, 2024, related to Affordable Residential Unit Development Charge Exemption Agreements:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 23, 2024, to:

i)    approve the Affordable Residential Unit Rental Development Charge Exemption Agreement template, as appended to the above-noted by-law;

ii)    approve the Affordable Residential Unit Ownership Development Charge Exemption Agreement template, as appended to the above-noted by-law;

iii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, or their written designate, to approve amendments to the above-noted Agreements; and,

iv)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, or their written designate, to execute the above-noted Agreements, which may be amended pursuant to the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development’s authority;

b)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED. (2024-L04A)

Motion Passed

8.4.10   (2.6) Subsidized Transit Program Update

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the staff report dated July 15, 2024, with respect to a Subsidized Transit Program Update, BE RECEIVED; it being noted that a verbal delegation from J. Salisbury, with respect to this matter, was received. (2024-S04)

Motion Passed

8.4.11   (2.9) Update to the Roadmap to 3,000 Affordable Units - “Roadmap 2.0”

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 July 15, 2024, related to an Update to the Roadmap to 3,000 Affordable Units “Roadmap 2.0”:

a)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to allocate up to $45,000 per affordable housing unit under the Roadmap to 3,000 for new projects that have not received approval from Council to enter into a contribution agreement;

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to direct $10,000,000 of the Housing Accelerator Fund affordable housing grant to expand the programs and activities under the Roadmap to 3,000;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to direct $10,000,000 of Housing Accelerator Fund investment to the Highly Supportive Housing plan and programs under the Whole of Community System Response; and,

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prioritize pre-development and development support to London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc. and all Social and Community Housing Boards for redevelopment projects at publicly funded housing properties; and,

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to assess the existing affordable unit bonus zones in Z-1 to consider a cash-in-lieu policy or other similar programs to enable the construction of new affordable units in London, and report back to Council with recommendations. (2024-S11)

Motion Passed

8.4.8   (2.8) Vision SOHO - Amendment to Contribution Agreement with Chelsea Green Community Homes Society

Motion made by E. Peloza

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 July 15, 2024, related to the Vision SoHo Amendment to the Contribution Agreement with Chelsea Green Community Homes Society:

a)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to release funds attributed to the Roadmap grant and soil remediation forgivable loan to an upset limit of $1,071,675 and amend the Municipal Contribution Agreement to reflect the change under the existing delegation;

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to release the remaining funds for soils and grants as outlined in the contribution agreement on confirmation of property tax exemption. (2024-L04A)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion be amended to read as follows:

That with respect to the Vision SoHo Amendment to the Contribution Agreement with Chelsea Green Community Homes Society, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to release funds attributed to the Roadmap grant and soil remediation forgivable loan to an upset limit of $1,281,219, it being noted that the amended contribution is $51,249 per unit for 25 units, with 12 filled from the City’s waitlist(s);

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to release the remaining the Roadmap grant of a total of $476,332, as outlined in the Municipal Contribution Agreement upon confirmation of 41 total affordable units for this project to achieve an average per unit contribution of $42,867; and

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to amend the Municipal Contribution Agreement to reflect the change under the existing delegation.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 8, clause 2.8, as approved, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated July 15, 2024, related to the Vision SoHo Amendment to the Contribution Agreement with Chelsea Green Community Homes Society:

a)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to release funds attributed to the Roadmap grant and soil remediation forgivable loan to an upset limit of $1,281,219, it being noted that the amended contribution is $51,249 per unit for 25 units, with 12 filled from the City’s waitlist(s);

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to release the remaining the Roadmap grant of a total of $476,332, as outlined in the Municipal Contribution Agreement upon confirmation of 41 total affordable units for this project to achieve an average per unit contribution of $42,867; and

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to amend the Municipal Contribution Agreement to reflect the change under the existing delegation.

8.4.12   (2.11) Draft Advocacy Message Sign By-law

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated July 15, 2024, related to a Draft Advocacy Message Sign By-law:

a)    a public participation meeting BE HELD at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with respect to the draft Advocacy Message Sign By-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, as well as a by-law related to graphic images;

b)    the draft Advocacy Message Sign By-law BE AMENDED to include additional wording under section 5.1, additional regulations, fourth bullet to read “with respect to a warning sign must be displayed alongside signage that shows images of deceased humans or animals, and must visibly state: ‘contains a Graphic Image(s) that may be offensive or disturbing to some people”; and,

c)    the request for delegation from J. Bulsza, with respect to this matter, BE REFERRED to the future public participation meeting;

it being noted that communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from the following individuals were received with respect to this matter:

  •    J. Bulsza;

  •    K. Lyng;

  •    C. Connell;

  •    L. Gibbons;

  •    R. Connell;

  •    B. Dow;

  •    D. Arcand;

  •    W.R. Myers;

  •    V. Gedge;

  •    T. Gainey;

  •    S. Glover;

  •    R. Gedge;

  •    B. Smith;

  •    E. Moyer; and,

  •    I. Longworth. (2024-C01A)

Motion Failed (5 to 10)

it being noted that the staff report, dated July 15, 2024, related to a Draft Advocacy Message Sign By-law was received;

it being further noted that communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from the following individuals were received with respect to this matter:

  •    J. Bulsza;

  •    K. Lyng;

  •    C. Connell;

  •    L. Gibbons;

  •    R. Connell;

  •    B. Dow;

  •    D. Arcand;

  •    W.R. Myers;

  •    V. Gedge;

  •    T. Gainey;

  •    S. Glover;

  •    R. Gedge;

  •    B. Smith;

  •    E. Moyer; and,

  •    I. Longworth. (2024-C01A)

8.4.13   (3.1) Renovictions - Renovation License and Relocation By-law Changes - Public Comments Received (To Date)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated July 15, 2024, with respect to Renovictions: Renovation License and Relocation By-law Changes and public comments received (to date):

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED for information purposes to summarize the comments received so far from the public regarding proposed amendments to the business licensing by-law to introduce a new license category pertaining to licensing renovation-induced evictions;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Community and Protective Services Committee on possible temporary alternate accommodations for displaced tenants or short-term rental top up; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Community and Protective Services Committee on draft language that would apply the protection in the by-law to residents who have already received the N13 Notice;

it being noted that amendments will be brought forward to amend the Business Licensing By-law L.-131-16, the Administrative Monetary Penalties By-law No. A-54 to introduce penalties and amounts to Schedule A-5 pertaining to the Business Licensing By-law and this proposed new license category, and to the Fees and Charges By-law No. A-59 to introduce fees and charges associated with this proposed licence category;

it being further noted that the communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from K. Pagniello and M. Laliberte, Neighbourhood Legal Services, C. Butler, M. Wallace, London Development Institute and L. Smith, Norquay Property Management, were received with respect to this matter;

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

  •    Sharon;

  •    Michelle;

  •    Felix;

  •    K. Andrews;

  •    D. Keenan;

  •    N. Chiles;

  •    Z. Ramsey;

  •    M. Wallace;

  •    L. Smith;

  •    Dominique;

  •    Tyler;

  •    G. Blake;

  •    Anonymous;

  •    C. Winnable;

  •    P. O’Connor;

  •    I. Grills;

  •    S. Smith;

  •    Candace;

  •    Andy;

  •    Robin S.

  •    J. Smith;

  •    Andrew; and,

  •    D. Hilton. (2024-C01)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That part a) BE APPROVED and reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated July 15, 2024, with respect to Renovictions: Renovation License and Relocation By-law Changes and public comments received (to date):

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED for information purposes to summarize the comments received so far from the public regarding proposed amendments to the business licensing by-law to introduce a new license category pertaining to licensing renovation-induced evictions;

it being noted that amendments will be brought forward to amend the Business Licensing By-law L.-131-16, the Administrative Monetary Penalties By-law No. A-54 to introduce penalties and amounts to Schedule A-5 pertaining to the Business Licensing By-law and this proposed new license category, and to the Fees and Charges By-law No. A-59 to introduce fees and charges associated with this proposed licence category;

it being further noted that the communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from K. Pagniello and M. Laliberte, Neighbourhood Legal Services, C. Butler, M. Wallace, London Development Institute and L. Smith, Norquay Property Management, were received with respect to this matter;

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

  •    Sharon;

  •    Michelle;

  •    Felix;

  •    K. Andrews;

  •    D. Keenan;

  •    N. Chiles;

  •    Z. Ramsey;

  •    M. Wallace;

  •    L. Smith;

  •    Dominique;

  •    Tyler;

  •    G. Blake;

  •    Anonymous;

  •    C. Winnable;

  •    P. O’Connor;

  •    I. Grills;

  •    S. Smith;

  •    Candace;

  •    Andy;

  •    Robin S.

  •    J. Smith;

  •    Andrew; and,

  •    D. Hilton. (2024-C01)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That part c) BE APPROVED and reads as follows:

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Community and Protective Services Committee on draft language that would apply the protection in the by-law to residents who have already received the N13 Notice;

Motion Failed (5 to 10)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That part b) BE APPROVED and reads as follows:

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Community and Protective Services Committee on possible temporary alternate accommodations for displaced tenants or short-term rental top up; and,

Motion Passed (8 to 7)

Item 13, clause 3.1, as approved, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated July 15, 2024, with respect to Renovictions: Renovation License and Relocation By-law Changes and public comments received (to date):

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED for information purposes to summarize the comments received so far from the public regarding proposed amendments to the business licensing by-law to introduce a new license category pertaining to licensing renovation-induced evictions;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Community and Protective Services Committee on possible temporary alternate accommodations for displaced tenants or short-term rental top up; and,

it being noted that amendments will be brought forward to amend the Business Licensing By-law L.-131-16, the Administrative Monetary Penalties By-law No. A-54 to introduce penalties and amounts to Schedule A-5 pertaining to the Business Licensing By-law and this proposed new license category, and to the Fees and Charges By-law No. A-59 to introduce fees and charges associated with this proposed licence category;

it being further noted that the communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from K. Pagniello and M. Laliberte, Neighbourhood Legal Services, C. Butler, M. Wallace, London Development Institute and L. Smith, Norquay Property Management, were received with respect to this matter;

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

  •    Sharon;

  •    Michelle;

  •    Felix;

  •    K. Andrews;

  •    D. Keenan;

  •    N. Chiles;

  •    Z. Ramsey;

  •    M. Wallace;

  •    L. Smith;

  •    Dominique;

  •    Tyler;

  •    G. Blake;

  •    Anonymous;

  •    C. Winnable;

  •    P. O’Connor;

  •    I. Grills;

  •    S. Smith;

  •    Candace;

  •    Andy;

  •    Robin S.

  •    J. Smith;

  •    Andrew; and,

  •    D. Hilton. (2024-C01)

8.4.14   (4.1) Councillors H. McAlister and D. Ferreira - City-Operated Long Term Care Facility (Dearness Home)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication, dated May 28, 2024, from Councillors H. McAlister and D. Ferreira, with respect to the City-Operated Long Term Care Facility (Dearness Home):

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to explore options for expanding the facility capacity of the Dearness Home for consideration to be included the Mayor’s 2028-2031 Multi-Year Budget; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to present a report on potential expansion options to accommodate more residents to the Dearness Home Committee of Management prior to the Mayor preparing their 2028-2031 Multi-Year Budget. (2024-S03)

Motion Failed (4 to 11)

it being noted that the communication, dated May 28, 2024, from Councillors H. McAlister and D. Ferreira, with respect to the City-Operated Long Term Care Facility (Dearness Home) was received.

8.5   10th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2024-07-16 CWC Report

It being noted that Councillor H. McAlister leaves the meeting at 4:32

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 10th Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of items 8 (2.7) and 11 (5.2)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.1) 7th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 7th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on June 19, 2024, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.2) Appointment of Consulting Engineer for Contract Administration Services and CP Rail Flagging Fees: Hyde Park Assignment ‘A’ - Phase 2 Project

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 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

8.5.4   (2.3) Appointment of Consulting Engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program: Round 3

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 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

8.5.5   (2.4) Mid-year Update: Green Bin and Collection Program Implementation

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 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

8.5.6   (2.5) RFP-2024-037 Sunningdale Road East and Clarke Road Intersection Improvements - Appointment of Consulting Engineer

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated 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

8.5.7   (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

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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

8.5.9   (2.8) Upper Thames River Conservation Authority and West London Dyke Phases 9 Through 13 Design

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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

8.5.10   (5.1) 8th 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 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.

Motion Passed

8.5.8   (2.7) School Zone Speed Limit Reductions on Major Streets Amendments to the Traffic and Parking By-law (Relates to Bill No. 247)

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 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 Failed (5 to 9)

it being noted that the staff report dated July 16, 2024 with respect to School Zone Speed Limit Reductions on Major Streets Amendments to the Traffic and Parking By-law was received.

8.5.11   (5.2) Service London Portal Request

Motion made by A. Hopkins

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.

Motion Failed (0 to 14)

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to setup a request button on the Service London Portal to report possible violations of the Yard and Lot Maintenance By-law including but not limited to: lawns, vegetative growth (natural gardens), graffiti, inoperative vehicles and refuse.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Item 11, clause 5.2, as approved, reads as follows:

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to setup a request button on the Service London Portal to report possible violations of the Yard and Lot Maintenance By-law including but not limited to: lawns, vegetative growth (natural gardens), graffiti, inoperative vehicles and refuse.

9.   Added Reports

9.1   13th Report of Council in Closed Session

It being noted that Councillor S. Trosow leaves the meeting at 5:01 PM

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Clause 1 of the 13th Report of Council in Closed Session BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

That Clause 1 of the 13th Report of the Council, In Closed Session, read as follows:

  1. Offer to Purchase City-Owned Lands – Sofina Foods Inc. – Part of Pine Street

That, as a procedural matter pursuant to Section 239 (6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the following recommendation be forwarded to Council, In Closed Session, for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded to Council for deliberation and a vote in public session:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the City-owned land located at Pine Street, legally described as part of Pine Street on Registered 433 being Parts 1 and 2 on Plan 33R-21849, as outlined on the sketch attached hereto as Appendix “A”, the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”), attached as Appendix “B”, submitted by Sofina Foods Inc. (the “Purchaser”) to purchase 0.80 acres of the subject property from the City, at a purchase price of $120,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the conditions and terms below:

i)     the Purchaser accepting the environmental condition of the lands on an “as is” basis;

ii)    the Purchaser accepting the lands subject to the retention of an easement in favor of London Hydro; and

iii)   the agreement being subject to the land being declared surplus by Council.

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Clause 3 of the Report of Council in Closed Session BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

That Clause 3 of the 13th Report of the Council, In Closed Session, read as follows:

  1. Partial Property Acquisition – 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd. – East London Link Project

That, as a procedural matter pursuant to Section 239 (6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the following recommendation be forwarded to Council, in Closed Session, for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded to Council for deliberation and a vote in public session:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to a partial acquisition of the property located at 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd., in the City of London, further described as Part of South 1/2 Lot 7, Concession 2, being Part of Pin 08105-0390(LT) more particularly described as Parts 12, 38, 39, 41, 42, and 49, Plan 33R-21810, containing an area of approximately 2,201.22 m2 (23,693.73 ft2), as shown on the reference plan attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the East London Link Project, the following actions be taken:

a)     the offer submitted by The Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology (the Vendor), to sell the subject property to the City, for a nominal sum of $2.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”, the agreement including a permanent easement in favour of London Hydro and a temporary easement agreement; and

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

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Clauses 2, 5, 6, and 8 of the 13th Report of Council in Closed Session BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

That Clauses 2, 5, 6, and 8 of the 13th Report of the Council, In Closed Session, read as follows:

  1. Offer to Purchase City-Owned Surplus Land – Part of Berkshire Park – 510 Berkshire Drive

That, as a procedural matter pursuant to Section 239 (6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the following recommendation be forwarded to Council, In Closed Session, for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded to Council for deliberation and a vote in public session:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the City-owned land located at Berkshire Drive, legally described as Parts of Block P, Plan 932, London / Westminster, being Parts of PIN 084050053, containing an area of approximately 7,965 square feet,  as outlined on the location map attached as Appendix “A”, the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”), attached as Appendix “B”, submitted by Sifton Properties Limited (the “Purchaser”) to purchase the subject property from the City, for the sum of $55,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the following conditions:

i)     Purchaser acknowledges and agrees that the property is being purchased on an “as is” basis;

ii)    the Purchaser agreeing to pay their own legal fees;

iii)   the Purchaser agreeing to pay all expenses for preparing and depositing a reference plan; and

iv)   the Purchaser to utilize parkland credits in lieu of payment of the purchase price.

  1. Property Acquisition – 129 Highbury Avenue North – Highbury Avenue and Hamilton Road Intersection Project

That, as a procedural matter pursuant to Section 239 (6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the following recommendation be forwarded to Council, in Closed Session, for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded to Council for deliberation and a vote in public session:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports,  with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the acquisition of the property located at 129 Highbury Avenue North, in the City of London, further described as S 7 FT Lot 147 and all of Lot 148, Plan 511, in the City of London, County of Middlesex, being all of PIN 083400243, containing an area of approximately 4,585.42 square feet (0.105 ac), as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future  improvements to accommodate the Highbury Avenue and Hamilton Road Intersection Project, the following actions be taken:

a)     the offer submitted by Justin David Kirk (the Vendor), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $374,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”; and

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

  1. Property Acquisition – 1535 Dundas Street – Open Space and Natural Heritage

That, as a procedural matter pursuant to Section 239 (6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the following recommendation be forwarded to Council, in Closed Session, for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded to Council for deliberation and a vote in public session:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure and the Director, Parks and Forestry, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 1535 Dundas Street, further described as Part Lots 7 and 8, Plan 69 and Part of Hill Street Plan 69, Closed by 8517LY, designated as Part 2, Plan 33R-7947; in the City of London, County of Middlesex, with an area of approximately 4.28 acres, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of a park acquisition to protect natural heritage features, the following actions be taken:

a)      the offer submitted by Drewlo Construction Limited (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum $630,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”; and

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

  1. Awarding of the 2024 Queen Elizabeth Scholarships

That, as a procedural matter pursuant to Section 239 (2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, the following recommendation be forwarded to the Council, In Closed session, for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded to City Council for deliberation and a vote in public session:

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, and in recognition of achieving the highest scholastic achievement in their graduating year, the following students BE AWARDED the 2024 Queen Elizabeth Scholarships, in the amounts shown:

Chuying Huo              London Central Secondary School                           99.00%   $2,000

Adrian Starzynski     Saint André Bessette Catholic Secondary School    99.00%   $2,000

That progress was made with respect to items 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, and 4.12 as noted on the public agenda, (6.8/12/CSC), (6.1/9/CPSC), (6.2/9/CPSC), and (6.1/13/Council).

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Clauses 4 and 7 of the 13th Report of Council in Closed Session BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 2)

That Clauses 4 and 7 of the 13th Report of the Council, In Closed Session, read as follows:

  1. Property Acquisition – 22 Wellington Road – Wellington Gateway Project

That, as a procedural matter pursuant to Section 239 (6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the following recommendation be forwarded to Council, in Closed Session, for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded to Council for deliberation and a vote in public session:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 22 Wellington Road, further described as Part of Lot 18, Registered Plan 11 (4TH Division), being west half, except Part 10 on Plan 32R30; City of London, County of Middlesex, being all of PIN 08357-0053 (LT), containing an area of approximately 7,459.38 square feet, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the offer submitted by Jim Pattison Enterprises Ltd. (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $705,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”; and

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

  1. Settlement Agreement – 1144 Dundas Street – East London Link Project

That, as a procedural matter pursuant to Section 239 (6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the following recommendation be forwarded to Council, in Closed Session, for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded to Council for deliberation and a vote in public session:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 1144 Dundas Street, further described as Part Block D, Registered Plan 494, in the City of London, County of Middlesex, designated as Part 1, Plan ER-1545445, being part of PIN 08289-0057, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the East London Link Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Settlement Agreement as to compensation and possession from Phe-Naz Holdings Inc. to settle the outstanding expropriation compensation to the property owner, for the total sum of $215,800.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”; and

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

That the 13th Report of Council in Closed Session, as approved, reads as follows:

That clause 1 to 8 of the 13th Report of the Council, In Closed Session, read as follows:

  1. Offer to Purchase City-Owned Lands – Sofina Foods Inc. – Part of Pine Street

That, as a procedural matter pursuant to Section 239 (6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the following recommendation be forwarded to Council, In Closed Session, for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded to Council for deliberation and a vote in public session:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the City-owned land located at Pine Street, legally described as part of Pine Street on Registered 433 being Parts 1 and 2 on Plan 33R-21849, as outlined on the sketch attached hereto as Appendix “A”, the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”), attached as Appendix “B”, submitted by Sofina Foods Inc. (the “Purchaser”) to purchase 0.80 acres of the subject property from the City, at a purchase price of $120,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the conditions and terms below:

i)     the Purchaser accepting the environmental condition of the lands on an “as is” basis;

ii)    the Purchaser accepting the lands subject to the retention of an easement in favor of London Hydro; and

iii)   the agreement being subject to the land being declared surplus by Council.

  1. Offer to Purchase City-Owned Surplus Land – Part of Berkshire Park – 510 Berkshire Drive

That, as a procedural matter pursuant to Section 239 (6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the following recommendation be forwarded to Council, In Closed Session, for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded to Council for deliberation and a vote in public session:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the City-owned land located at Berkshire Drive, legally described as Parts of Block P, Plan 932, London / Westminster, being Parts of PIN 084050053, containing an area of approximately 7,965 square feet,  as outlined on the location map attached as Appendix “A”, the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”), attached as Appendix “B”, submitted by Sifton Properties Limited (the “Purchaser”) to purchase the subject property from the City, for the sum of $55,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the following conditions:

i)     Purchaser acknowledges and agrees that the property is being purchased on an “as is” basis;

ii)    the Purchaser agreeing to pay their own legal fees;

iii)   the Purchaser agreeing to pay all expenses for preparing and depositing a reference plan; and

iv)   the Purchaser to utilize parkland credits in lieu of payment of the purchase price.

  1. Partial Property Acquisition – 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd. – East London Link Project

That, as a procedural matter pursuant to Section 239 (6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the following recommendation be forwarded to Council, in Closed Session, for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded to Council for deliberation and a vote in public session:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to a partial acquisition of the property located at 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd., in the City of London, further described as Part of South 1/2 Lot 7, Concession 2, being Part of Pin 08105-0390(LT) more particularly described as Parts 12, 38, 39, 41, 42, and 49, Plan 33R-21810, containing an area of approximately 2,201.22 m2 (23,693.73 ft2), as shown on the reference plan attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the East London Link Project, the following actions be taken:

a)     the offer submitted by The Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology (the Vendor), to sell the subject property to the City, for a nominal sum of $2.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”, the agreement including a permanent easement in favour of London Hydro and a temporary easement agreement; and

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

  1. Property Acquisition – 22 Wellington Road – Wellington Gateway Project

That, as a procedural matter pursuant to Section 239 (6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the following recommendation be forwarded to Council, in Closed Session, for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded to Council for deliberation and a vote in public session:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 22 Wellington Road, further described as Part of Lot 18, Registered Plan 11 (4TH Division), being west half, except Part 10 on Plan 32R30; City of London, County of Middlesex, being all of PIN 08357-0053 (LT), containing an area of approximately 7,459.38 square feet, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the offer submitted by Jim Pattison Enterprises Ltd. (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $705,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”; and

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

  1. Property Acquisition – 129 Highbury Avenue North – Highbury Avenue and Hamilton Road Intersection Project

That, as a procedural matter pursuant to Section 239 (6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the following recommendation be forwarded to Council, in Closed Session, for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded to Council for deliberation and a vote in public session:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports,  with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the acquisition of the property located at 129 Highbury Avenue North, in the City of London, further described as S 7 FT Lot 147 and all of Lot 148, Plan 511, in the City of London, County of Middlesex, being all of PIN 083400243, containing an area of approximately 4,585.42 square feet (0.105 ac), as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future  improvements to accommodate the Highbury Avenue and Hamilton Road Intersection Project, the following actions be taken:

a)     the offer submitted by Justin David Kirk (the Vendor), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $374,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”; and

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

  1. Property Acquisition – 1535 Dundas Street – Open Space and Natural Heritage

That, as a procedural matter pursuant to Section 239 (6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the following recommendation be forwarded to Council, in Closed Session, for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded to Council for deliberation and a vote in public session:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure and the Director, Parks and Forestry, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 1535 Dundas Street, further described as Part Lots 7 and 8, Plan 69 and Part of Hill Street Plan 69, Closed by 8517LY, designated as Part 2, Plan 33R-7947; in the City of London, County of Middlesex, with an area of approximately 4.28 acres, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of a park acquisition to protect natural heritage features, the following actions be taken:

a)      the offer submitted by Drewlo Construction Limited (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum $630,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”; and

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

  1. Settlement Agreement – 1144 Dundas Street – East London Link Project

That, as a procedural matter pursuant to Section 239 (6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the following recommendation be forwarded to Council, in Closed Session, for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded to Council for deliberation and a vote in public session:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 1144 Dundas Street, further described as Part Block D, Registered Plan 494, in the City of London, County of Middlesex, designated as Part 1, Plan ER-1545445, being part of PIN 08289-0057, as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the East London Link Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Settlement Agreement as to compensation and possession from Phe-Naz Holdings Inc. to settle the outstanding expropriation compensation to the property owner, for the total sum of $215,800.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”; and

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

  1. Awarding of the 2024 Queen Elizabeth Scholarships

That, as a procedural matter pursuant to Section 239 (2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, the following recommendation be forwarded to the Council, In Closed session, for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded to City Council for deliberation and a vote in public session:

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, and in recognition of achieving the highest scholastic achievement in their graduating year, the following students BE AWARDED the 2024 Queen Elizabeth Scholarships, in the amounts shown:

Chuying Huo              London Central Secondary School                           99.00%   $2,000

Adrian Starzynski     Saint André Bessette Catholic Secondary School    99.00%   $2,000

That progress was made with respect to items 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, and 4.12 as noted on the public agenda, (6.8/12/CSC), (6.1/9/CPSC), (6.2/9/CPSC), and (6.1/13/Council).

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

Councillor E. Peloza enquiries with respect to recent flooding events. The Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure provides a response related to operations and the Basement Flooding Program.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 236 to Bill No. 262, including Added Bill No.’s 264, 267, and 268 and excluding Bill No.’s 247 and 256 BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Second Reading of Bill No. 236 to Bill No. 262, including Added Bill No.’s 264, 267, and 268 and excluding Bill No.’s 247 and 256 BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 236 to Bill No. 262, including Added Bill No.’s 264, 267, and 268 and excluding Bill No.’s 247 and 256 BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 256 and Added Bill No. 263 BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Second Reading of Bill No. 256 and Added Bill No. 263 BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 256 and Added Bill No. 263 BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Pribil

That Introduction and First Reading of Added Bill No. 265 BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Second Reading of Added Bill No. 265 BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

Motion made by J. Pribil

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Third Reading and Enactment of Added Bill No. 265 BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Introduction and First Reading of Added Bill No. 266 and 269 BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (11 to 2)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Second Reading of Added Bill No. 266 and 269 BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (11 to 2)

Motion made by J. Pribil

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Third Reading and Enactment of Added Bill No. 266 and 269 BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (11 to 2)

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

Bill No. 236

By-law No. A.-8517-173 - A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 23rd day of July, 2024. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 237

By-law No. A.-8518-174 - A by-law to approve template Affordable Residential Unit Development Charge Exemption Agreements and to authorize the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development to execute and amend same. (2.10/9/CPSC)

Bill No. 238

By-law No. A.-8519-175 - A by-law to authorize and approve a Municipal Funding Agreement of the Canada Community-Building Fund and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement. (2.1/12/CSC)

Bill No. 239

By-law No. A.-8520-176 - A by-law to authorize and approve the Interim Transfer Agreement between His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Attorney General and the Corporation of the City of London related to the transfer of responsibility for certain prosecutions under Parts III and IX of the Provincial Offences Act and to delegate the authority to the Deputy City Manager, Legal Services to approve any future amending agreements related to the Agreement. (2.4/12/CSC)

Bill No. 240

By-law No. A.-8521-177 - A by-law to authorize and approve agreements in relation the Ontario Ministry of Transportation DriveON Program and to delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports and the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services or their designates, to approve and execute further agreements in relation to the DriveON Program (2.5/12/CSC)

Bill No. 241

By-law No. A.-8513(a)-178 - A by-law to amend By-law A.-8513-157 entitled, “A by-law to approve the appointments of Hearings Officers in accordance with By-law A.-6653-121, as amended, being “A by-law to establish the positions of Hearings Officer”. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 242

By-law No. A-50-24011 - A by-law to amend By-law No. A-50 being “A by-law to provide for the Rules of Order and Procedure for the Council of The Corporation of the City of London, and to repeal By-law A-45” to remove the requirement of the Striking Committee to make recommendations for appointments to Community Advisory Committees and to update the mandates of both the Corporate Services Committee and the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to reflect the change in standing committee that considers community advisory committee appointments. (3.2/11/GWG)(2.3/12/SPPC)

Bill No. 243

By-law No. A-54-24017 - A by-law to amend By-law No. A-54, as amended, being “A by-law to implement an Administrative Monetary Penalty System in London.” (2.7a/9/CPSC)

Bill No. 244

By-law No. C.P.-1512(dn)-179 - A by-law to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to 3392 Wonderland Road South (3.4a/11/PEC)

Bill No. 245

By-law No. C.P.-1512(do)-180 - A by-law to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to 1105 Wellington Road (3.6a/11/PEC)

Bill No. 246

By-law No. C.P.-1512(dp)-181 - A by-law to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to 359 Wellington Road & 657 Base Line Road East (3.8a/11/PEC)

Bill No. 247

NOT PASSED AT COUNCIL - 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.” (2.7/10/CWC)

Bill No. 248

By-law No. PW-11-24004 - A by-law to amend By-law No. PW-11, being “A by-law to provide for the sale of fireworks and the setting off of fireworks and pyrotechnics within the City of London, and for requiring a permit and imposing conditions”. (2.7b/9/CPSC)

Bill No. 249

By-law No. S.-6339-182 - A by-law to assume certain works and services in the City of London. (Foxwood Subdivision Phase 3A, Plan 33M-799 – Stage 1)  (Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure)

Bill No. 250

By-law No. S.-6340-183 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Dundas Street)  (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes pursuant to Consent B.010/23)

Bill No. 251

By-law No. S.-6341-184 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Wellington Road)  (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes pursuant to Consent B.014/23)

Bill No. 252

By-law No. S.-6342-185 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Wharncliffe Road South and Base Line Road West) (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes pursuant to Site Plan Approval file SPA23-073)

Bill No. 253

By-law No. S.-6343-186 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Wilton Grove Road)  (Chief Surveyor – for road widening purposes pursuant to Site Plan Approval file SPA23-104)

Bill No. 254

By-law No. WM-12-24022 - A by-law to amend the Municipal Waste & Resources Collection By-law WM-12. (Director, Climate Change, Environment & Waste Management)

Bill No. 255

By-law No. Z.-1-243228 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1 Fallons Lane (3.2/11/PEC)

Bill No. 256

By-law No. Z.-1-243229 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 3614, 3630 Colonel Talbot Road and 6621 Pack Road (3.3/11/PEC)

Bill No. 257

By-law No. Z.-1-243230 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 3392 Wonderland Road South (3.4b/11/PEC)

Bill No. 258

By-law No. Z.-1-243231 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1458 Huron Street & 39 Redwood Lane (3.5/11/PEC)

Bill No. 259

By-law No. Z.-1-243232 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1105 Wellington Road (3.6b/11/PEC)

Bill No. 260

By-law No. Z.-1-243233 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 934 Oxford Street West (3.7/11/PEC)

Bill No. 261

By-law No. Z.-1-243234 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 359 Wellington Road & 657 Base Line Road East (3.8b/11/PEC)

Bill No. 262

By-law No. Z.-1-243235 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1725-1737 Richmond Street (3.9/11/PEC)

Bill No. 263

By-law No. A.-8522-187 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Sofina Foods Inc. for the sale of the City owned land located at Part of Pine Street on Registered 433, being Parts 1 and 2 on Plan 33R-21849, London / Westminster, in the City of London, County of Middlesex, being part of PIN 08295-0036, containing an area of approximately 0.80 acres, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.1/12/CSC)

Bill No. 264

By-law No. A.-8523-188 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Sifton Properties Limited for the sale of the City owned land located at Parts of Block P, Plan 932, London / Westminster, being Parts of PIN 084050053, in the City of London, County of Middlesex, containing an area of approximately 7,965 square feet, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.2/12/CSC)

Bill No. 265

By-law No. A.-8524-189 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and The Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology, for the partial acquisition of the property located at 1001 Fanshawe College Boulevard, in the City of London, for the East London Link Project, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.3/12/CSC)

Bill No. 266

By-law No. A.-8525-190 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Jim Pattison Enterprises Ltd, for the acquisition of the property located at 22 Wellington Road, in the City of London, for the Wellington Gateway Project, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.4/12/CSC)

Bill No. 267

By-law No. A.-8526-191 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Justin David Kirk, for the acquisition of the property located at 129 Highbury Avenue North, in the City of London, for the Highbury Avenue and Hamilton Road Intersection Project, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.5/12/CSC)

Bill No. 268

By-law No. A.-8527-192 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of London and Drewlo Construction Limited, for the acquisition of the property located at 1535 Dundas Street, in the City of London, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.6/12/CSC)

Bill No. 269

By-law No. A.-8528-193 - A by-law to authorize and approve a Settlement Agreement as to Compensation and Possession between The Corporation of the City of London and Phe-Naz Holdings Inc., for the property’s rights expropriated from the property at 1144 Dundas Street, in the City of London, for the East London Link Project, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.7/12/CSC)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 5:21 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 (4 hours, 41 minutes)

Thank you, please be seated. All right, everybody, welcome to the 13th meeting of city council. I’m gonna start with the land acknowledgement. We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Leni Peiwock, and Adawandran peoples.

We honor and 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 Wampum Belt Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, so we’re coming in chain. Beaver Hunting Grounds Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Nanfan Treaty of 1701, the McKee Treaty of 1790, London Township Treaty of 1796, the Huron Track Treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabek, and the Dish with One Spoon, Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabek and Haudenosaunee.

Three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chippewaas of the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and the Mancidela Ware Nation, who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs. Also let colleagues know on that. I had the privilege of writing a congratulations letter to Anida’s chief who you all met when we had our joint meeting. He was re-elected as the chief for another term, so I wrote a congratulations letter on behalf of council.

I just thought I’d share that with colleagues as well. The City of London is also committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact council agenda at London.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. Julie Jean Flack is a versatile musician whose artistry seamlessly blends her Celtic roots with contemporary pop.

Her talents encompass singing, songwriting, piano playing, and step dancing, reflecting a deep musical heritage and multifaceted creativity. Throughout her career, Emily has captivated audiences across Canada, the US, Europe, and the UK with her distinctive style and dynamic performances, sharing stages with renowned artists like Leahy, Natalie McMacmaster, Shane Cook, and more. Please rise and join me in welcoming Emily Jean Flack, who will now sing “The National Anthem” for us. ♪ And our home and native land ♪ ♪ Patriot like his we see ♪ ♪ The truth not strong ♪ ♪ We stand on guard, we stand on guard, we stand on ♪ To the agenda, disclosure of a funerary interest.

Look for colleagues to declare, Councillor Cuddy. Thank you, Your Worship. 8.2, 11th report of the Planning and Environment Committee. Number 10, 3.3, Colonel Talbot Road, and 661 Pack Road.

I’ll be recusing myself from the vote. Any others? Preble, go ahead. Thank you, I’ll be recusing myself from 8.4 or section eight reports, 8.1, 0.1, and 2.1 film, London Review, and next steps.

Thank you. Okay, any others? No, no one online. And all other colleagues who are not present in chambers are actually present and online, just so colleagues know.

Okay, that brings us to recognitions. I have no recognitions for today. I don’t know if the colleagues have any. Okay, I see none.

Review of confidential matters because they’re in public. We have none. Council in closed session, we actually have a good number, fair number of items. We have 12.

They’re all listed on the council and added agenda. I’ll look for a motion to go into camera for that. Councilor Hopkins, seconded by Councilor Ferreira. Any discussion?

Okay, we’ll open that in the system. Councilor Van Merbergen. Oh, yes. No other, thank you, closing the vote.

Motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, colleagues, and we’ll be moving to committee room five. So we’ll do that now. Okay, thank you, please be seated.

Okay, that completes the closed session. We’re on to item five, which is confirmation and signing of the minutes from previous meetings. We have one set of minutes to approve. The 12th meeting held on June 25th.

I look for a mover for the minutes. Moved by Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Ferreira. Any questions in the minutes? Okay, we’ll open that for voting.

Councilor Van Merbergen. Oh, yes. No other closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero.

All right, communications and petitions. There are six different sections for the year, but you can see within each of those sections, the referrals to different parts of the agenda. They’re all relevant to items on our agenda. So we have one consolidated motion to refer all of the communications to those parts of the agenda, so we can deal with them there.

Someone’s willing to move that. Councilor Ramen, seconded by Councilor Pribble. Any discussion on that? Okay, we’ll open that for voting.

Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, motions to which notice is given. There are none, which brings us to reports.

And I’m just gonna ask colleagues, as I kind of reminded you at the end of last meeting when we got to bylaws, as well as a note that was circulated from the clerk yesterday. It’s very helpful to us as we get to the bylaws sections. Everybody’s very anxious to wrap up the meeting at that point. Sometimes we’re a little slow ‘cause we’re deciding how to divide them all up with people who wanna vote on things differently.

If as you work your way through these reports, if you haven’t indicated already, there’s something you do wanna vote on separately. If you can just pass a note to the clerk, let them know. We’ll start to kind of work on those motions throughout the course of the meeting rather than wait at the end and do it all together. It might be a little more efficient.

So I’ll just make a note as you go. You can see within the different items what bylaws are referred to for different items. If nothing is referred to, there’s no bylaw related to that item. So you only have to really think about the ones that have bylaws related to them.

We will automatically separate out the ones that there were conflicts on or the ones that you already indicated through that email. So I just wanted to remind you that at the start of the report section, which I’m sure will go very quick and efficiently. 8.1, the 12th report of the strategic priorities and policy committee, the deputy mayor present that report from our meeting last Thursday. Thank you, worship.

And I do hope it goes more efficiently and quickly than our meeting ‘cause I’m not sure I can stand for seven hours. However, I will advise that I have been asked to pull a number of items and with your indulgence, I just want to provide a little preamble to this. Item three is being pulled as Councilor Pribble had declared a conflict. With respect, as we had some lengthy debate on governance working group and strategic opportunities working group, what I have done is I have spoken to Councilors.

I’ve also looked at the agenda in terms of where, ‘cause we had a number of Councilors who had to leave and were not present for all the votes. Where sufficient votes were absent to potentially change the outcome of a vote, I’ve asked the clerk to change those. So that would be or to pull those. So in respect to the governance working group, there was a vote defeated, the reduction to Councilor Expenses.

I’ve asked for that to be pulled as it was a one vote decision and four Councilors were absent. Item six, with respect to the neighborhood decision-making failed on a tie, there was a Councilor absent. And item eight, Councilor Stevenson has asked to be pulled separately. I’ve also been asked to have the strategic working group vote on the residential neighborhood snow plowing pulled.

That was lost eight to six. However, there was one Councilor absent and one Councilor who’s indicated they wish to change their vote. So those are the ones where an outcome is potentially different than what we saw at committee. I’m hoping that colleagues don’t need all of these pulled to be voted on separately, given that your opposition to things were registered at the committee level.

Of course, we’re always in Council’s hands. I will advise as well from the governance working group. I did look at item nine, the live stream versus record. There were four Councilors absent for that, but that vote was an eight, three decision.

So the absent Councilors would not change the outcome of a vote because actually a majority of Council as a whole had voted in support of the motion that went on the floor. So I hope that that helps folks for the efficiency sake. So I’m prepared to move one, two, five, seven and nine now, where there were no potential changes in outcome. Okay, so let’s start with this.

One, two, five, seven and nine. Does anybody want any of those dealt with separately? If not, you’re willing to put that on the floor. Okay, so one, two, five, seven and nine are on the floor.

Any discussion on those? Okay, I’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, go ahead.

Your worship all now put item three on the floor. This is with respect to the film, London, review and next steps. This has been pulled as Councilor Pribble has a conflict. Okay, moved to buy the SPPC chair.

Any discussion on this one? We’ll open that for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero with one recuse. Okay, I’ll now put item four on the floor.

I’m gonna look for the clerk’s guidance on this. I think we want to deal with clause D first, which is the reduction in the annual counselor’s expense account and then we can deal with the rest of part four after that where there was unit in M&D. Okay, so we’re gonna do it slightly differently than the way you suggested. Because there were two of the three items that you want voted on defeated, they never actually made it to council.

They’re in the report, which is why there’s no notice of motion required because it was dealt with by committee, but they’re not actually in Vinnie’s report recommendation. So you put the item on the floor, the 11th report of the governance working group. There’s one item within that report that I believe a counselor wants dealt with separately. So we will vote on that separately.

Now that the report is on the floor, if someone would like to move an additional direction to do something related to the things that were defeated, that could be done now because the report’s on the floor. Those would be decisions that we would be making in that moment. So it would be the reports on the floor, but then it’s we are going to do this. It’s not an amendment to add back into the report.

It’s just a decision of council based on the report that’s come before. When we make that vote, it will be final. It won’t be voted on twice. So it won’t be an amended back into the report.

It’ll just be this came before us. It was defeated a committee. I’d still like to do it in this way. Councilor makes a motion.

We have a vote and then it’s done. Then we’ll deal with the remaining things in the report if people want them dealt with separately. So if at this time someone wants to do something with say expense accounts and move a direction, you would have a very clearly written direction in the committee report that never made it to council, but is in the report that could be moved at this time while this report is on the floor. And then we would debate just that.

And that would be a decision that council’s making in that moment. There’s not two votes on it, okay? Does that sound clear? As clear as it’s going to get.

So as I had indicated, four councilors were in fact absent for that vote. However, I’m gonna go, I’m gonna suggest that the chair look to councilor Plosa as she was the original mover of the motion at the working group. Sure, so the general governance working group report is on the floor. However, there’s an additional direction you’d like to take based on the information that report councilor Plosa, you go ahead at this time.

Thank you, I’ll leave it to the clerks, but my intention is to put that part D that civic administration be directed to bring forward the bylaw that would reduce the council members’ expense policy annually starting next year from 15,000 to 13,500 realizing four members of council were absent for that vote. I’m not sure if those bylaws can be brought forward to tonight or that those bylaws would come forward to a future meeting of council just procedurally and timing-wise. Is there someone willing to second that? Councilor Pribble, you’re willing to second?

No, no, no talking at this time. Are you willing to second? - Yes. Okay, I’ll get you on a list.

Councilor Plosa can make her case first since she’s moving the motion, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. I had attended the governance working group meetings, apologies for missing this vote at SPPC, realizing that going to this term of council, we had reallocated some of our expenses being the ward wide mail out into a different expense fund and the registration fees for conferences, technically speaking, we already did increase this expense account, just we did not new, do the counterbalance of somewhat equal reduction, perhaps an oversight at the time, perhaps not, depending on where you stay on this, but just looking forward to maybe minimal conversation tonight as we already had a robust conversation just to full vote at council. Okay, and Councilor Pribble, I have you next on the list if you wanted to speak.

Well, I just want to certainly did I agree with it as I seconded it and I had the wording kind of done that I had no effort to help the staff or I just had the civic administration. The wording’s already on the floor, you seconded it. Well, it’s what was in the report, that’s what Councilor Plos has moved, but you can speak to it if you like. No, you’re good, great.

Okay, any other speakers to this? So this is a decision, this is not amending back into the committee report, this is a decision, just so people know we’re not going to vote on this twice, it’s not an amendment, it’s actually a decision of council. All right, then if there’s no more speakers, we’re going to open this for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 10 to five.

Okay, so that decision is done and decided, we’re still on the committee report, if someone else wants to make another motion, you said that there was something about neighborhood decision making. So, no, that’s in item six with respect to the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group, all other items on governance, working group, we’re in concurrence, so I’m prepared to move that full. Okay, and there wasn’t any number eight in there, that was related to the other working group as well, right? Okay, great, so you just want to move the rest, basically the report as it came from SPPC now.

Okay, so that report is on the floor moved by chair, any discussion on the rest of that report? Okay, we can open that for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, go ahead.

Okay, so moving on to item six, the first report of the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group, we’re going to have a similar process here, I’m prepared to put the report coming out of committee on the floor, I’m aware that Councilor Pribble would like to add back in a budget business case for residential streets snow plowing, and Councilor Hillier was absent and would like an opportunity to vote on neighborhood decision-making, so we are going to need, I believe, movers and seconders for both of those items one at a time to put those back on the floor, and then we can deal with the balance of the report. Yes, I can encourage, just let me double check to flip to the pages for the wording of the motion, so just give me a second. Okay, so the general report is on the floor, general report is on the floor, so if someone would like to, based on the report, there is a motion that did not make it here, failed six to eight related to the snow removal piece, so if someone wants to put that back on, they would need a mover and a seconder for that, particular one, Councilor Pribble, you’re willing to move that? Yes, I would like to move this point, does the snow removal, yes.

Sure, and so you can stand, do you want to move the motion, a seconder for that, okay? Councilor Cuddy’s willing to second, Councilor Pribble, did you want to make, do you want to make some comments now? I’ll just make brief comments, yes, I do think that I would like our staff to explore this opportunity and to give us the report back and for us to evaluate it, if it’s a meaningful savings for Londoners, thank you. Okay, other speakers, go ahead, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, your worship through you. This was one of the items that at the working group, like throwing spaghetti against the wall, I tossed out to see if there was any interest in anything. I do think that there is some value in at least getting a very high level report back. I fully recognize that there are challenges around this, including the introduction of a new by-law and what that looks like.

However, if it is a business case for consideration in the budget, then it opens up the door for us to have a wider conversation with Londoners, with respect to if it is a, and I have no idea what the number is, and I know Ms. Cher told us she couldn’t give us the number right away, that she’d need some work, but let’s say the number is 2 million. I wanna have that discussion with Londoners, whether they would rather shovel their sidewalks and save the 2 million, or whether they wanna keep having snowplows do it. And I don’t know what the discussion will be like even in my own neighborhood, but I think it’s worth having the numbers to take a look at for us.

And I believe at the Strategic Opportunities Review, working group, the indication was that we actually wouldn’t be looking at the numbers for this year, that we might get some really high level ones, but that would probably be 2025 sometime before we would get the information back from staff. So we’d actually be looking at it for 2026. So there’s lots of time for us to have some community engagement around this. So I think it’s worth at least exploring a little bit deeper, as I know other municipalities do take this option rather than clearing residential class neighborhoods themselves.

Okay, other speakers. Oh, sorry, Councillor Vamea-Bergin, you go ahead. Yeah, thank you, Mayor. I just wanna clarify, particularly for the Councillors who were not present, exactly what this motion is.

So the motion that will come before us right now is basically to go ahead and cut out snow plowing for all residents who have sidewalks in London. Is that the motion? No, the motion is to report back on the possibility of doing that so that we have more information on what that would entail, the potential cost savings. In order to allow Councillors to do engagement, but there’s no direction to actually take that action.

The actual direction before us is to report back on the potential to do it with the information required to make that decision at a later date. Great, okay, thank you. Any other speakers? Okay, we’ll open that for voting.

Posing the vote, motion fails, seven to eight. To you, thank you, Your Worship, as I indicated, there was one additional item from this report, which was with respect to the neighbourhood decision-making. It failed on a tie. Councillor Hill here was absent, so I’d like to see now if any member of council wishes to put a motion back on the floor.

Go ahead, Councillor ramen. Thank you and through you. I’ll look to put that back on the floor, please. All right, so that’s on page eight of the committee reports.

You wanna put that version of the motion back on the floor? I’ll look for a seconder for that. Councillor Lehman, oh, sorry, a couple of you, but Lehman, Councillor Lehman, won the day. Okay, so that’s on the floor.

Again, this will be a decision that we’re making in this moment. Councillor ramen, did you like to speak now? Thank you, I did have a procedural question though. If this motion were not to pass, do you, am I able to put the original recommendation from the working group back on?

Your Worship, if I can assist. Yes, go ahead. The motion that Councillor ramen is putting back on the floor would be to bring forward a business case to reduce the neighborhood decision making by half and fund it from the community investment reserve. That’s right.

And the original motion at the working group was to suspend it for the remainder of the multi-year budget, no source of funding. So it would be in my position that they’re fairly substantially different. Yes, that’s where I’m going, and yes, yes. So that’s exactly what the clerk and I were talking about.

So we can do this motion now at council. If someone wanted to do, if Councillor ramen wanted to do that motion, the decision that council today wouldn’t preclude you from going back through the working group or another avenue to bring that forward, but it should go through a committee cycle to do so. Go ahead. So the motion that Councillor ramen has put on the floor has failed at committee in a tie.

Sorry, I just wanna make sure we’re following process ‘cause the question was, could she then put another motion forward substantially different from this one, which would reflect the committee’s, the working group’s original decision. Yes, so yes, the answer is yes. You can do that, Councillor ramen. If this fails, given it did come in the original form to SPPC, it was seen by all of council.

It was seen by the public. It may not have made it out of the committee in that form, but given it made it through a committee, I don’t, I’m not gonna disallow it from coming up. If this motion that you have on the floor now fails, you could do something similar that came to committee, something that came to committee that was discussed. But if it was something substantially different, you had me going on the substantially different piece, which is like, no, no, no.

We’re not doing things substantially different at council, but I understand what you’re saying. The motions are different. We’re not voting on like two different things. You’re not voting on 125,000 and 124,000.

Like that would be ruled out of order. So be careful the words you use because I know what you’re saying now, and the clerk and I agree that they’re different enough that they could be different motions here at council, but they’re not so different that it warrants going through another committee cycle. So long answer is yes. Go ahead, Councilor Robin.

Thank you, and I appreciate that response chair. So I brought this letter forward for SPPC with Deputy Mayor Lewis as an opportunity to continue to provide some support after the discussion that took place in the working group and that that support could flow through our parks program. When we were in the discussion in the working group, some of the conversations that we had were around some inconsistencies perhaps in the way that that funding is making its way to projects in the community, as well as some concerns around school boards and other partners potentially being eligible for some of that funding at this time. So this was a way to retain funding where it would be for our parks projects and still have an opportunity to review the program and look for some opportunities to make changes that then could better align the program for the next multi-year budget.

So I hope my colleagues will support what’s on the table and I hope that we can have meaningful discussions as we move through these items in the working group to be able to bring forward some savings and efficiencies for the community. Thank you. Other speakers to this? Sorry, Councilor Trossaab, got your hand up, go ahead.

Yes, thank you. I’m not gonna be supporting this. I believe that we should leave the program as it is at both the working group at the committee. I asked the question whether staff could through their administration of the program make their own internal adjustments.

So this type of thing that people are objecting to when to happen and they said they could. So I have yet to get, I have yet to get for me a satisfactory explanation as why we have to take this more drastic step. So I’m going to be not supporting this and I have a lot of confidence that the staff can look at these school yard playground type things and do the right thing but I cannot support the motion that’s on the table. Thank you.

Other speakers, go ahead, Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Your Worship. So I co-signed the letter with Councillor Ramen on this compromise position. However, I’ve had a chance to think about this over the weekend.

I’ve had a chance to look at some of the results coming out of the neighborhood decision making program over the last several years. And as a result, I’m more concerned than ever. So I’m actually not going to support this. I’m going to support going back to the original committee recommendation.

So I’m going to vote to defeat this so that we can move back to suspending the program for the remainder of this multi-year budget cycle and do a deep dive on this. I am cognizant of the fact that in the multi-year budget earlier this year, we created a brand new $4 million parks reserve fund. And I think that that perhaps is a more appropriate place if we are looking for the community’s input on what to do with funding for our parks to be involving a participatory democracy process in that manner, then through neighborhood decision making. I do believe, and I did on Canada Day, engage with my constituents on park improvements for Kiwanis Park North, had a great reception, fed a lot of information back to Mr.

Yeoman and Mr. Bruin about the response from my residents there. They got to participate in what might be in Kiwanis Park in the future. But I struggle with some of the other ways that neighborhood decision making is being used to fund things on the properties of faith communities, which are by their very nature exclusive to some on school board properties, which get locked up and are inaccessible to the public after hours, as well as some of the funding that’s going to some of the other projects.

I don’t think whether or not we need a bench in a park should be a popularity contest by neighborhood decision making. I think that should simply be a decision of our parks operations team as to where the benches need to go. So for that reason, I really appreciate the work Councilor Raman has done in trying to find a compromise and I supported her bringing this forward, but I’ve been reflecting on this. And I think that there’s more issues with this program that we’re seeing on the surface, including what are the advertising costs, the print shop costs, the amount of staff time that’s going into this, beyond the $250,000 that’s actually being granted out.

So I think we need to put a pause on this in these tough fiscal times and look at whether or not it comes back in 2027 in a future budget update. Other speakers, I’m gonna speak to this. So I’m gonna turn the chair over to Councilor Raman. Thank you and go ahead, Mayor.

Okay, so it should come as no surprise that I’m a fan of the neighborhood decision making program given when I originally ran in 2014, it was a program that I ran on and brought to Council. And I think over the years, conceptually, Council has made a number of improvements to it. But at the base level, I still feel municipal Council has been way too hung up, way too hung up on the results and not the process. Like the democratic process of having people in the community think about ways to improve their neighborhoods is fundamentally a good thing.

The engagement that they do when they go door-to-door, they encourage other people to support their initiatives is fundamentally a good thing. And I know that over the years, we’ve tried to make improvements to the program, doing an equity analysis, trying to ensure that there are disparities in those who are successful and those who aren’t. And I certainly think there continue to be improvements to that particular program. I, for sure, share some of the concerns related to the use of school properties.

If we’re going to fund something on those properties, you know, it needs to be open and accessible at all times to those who are there. I think all of those changes can be made through structural changes of the program and not necessarily down the path that we’re on now. So this is where it’s a very difficult path forward because it’s pretty clear through the votes at committee that there’s a number of members of council who want to see something completely different. And although this motion that Councilor Rahman has put before us is an iteration of a participatory decision-making process, it certainly isn’t the same in scale and scope by rolling it back to the Get Involved program and restricting the size and the way it does.

It’s certainly a much smaller, more focused program. Now, where I will agree with the deputy mayor is the park’s improvements, which was a business case that I brought directly to the budget and I appreciate Council’s unanimous support for that, is a way to go out and engage neighborhoods across the city a potential to go out and engage neighborhoods across the city on improvements to their local parks and infrastructure. We realized through the pandemic that the value of our public spaces is tremendously important, particularly when we need the most. And so I do believe that there is great potential within that structure, perhaps not in the first year because I think it’s important to roll some of that money out quickly, but in subsequent years to ensure that there is a significant portion of community engagement in the way that we improve those parks and ensure that people are getting features and items that they like.

And so, for me, it’s very important that there are components of participatory budgeting built into the municipal process. It’s important to me that there are places within our budget where the public has to decide in some way how to spend their own money. And it’s important to me that we get people thinking about how they want to improve their neighborhoods, their local parks, and these things can all combine within a participatory decision-making program. So, a bit of an awkward spot for me to figure out how to vote on this because I think I can save a bit of a version of this program now.

I realize there’s potential later. And the worst case scenario for me is what the deputy mayor decided are described and that’s no program in any form whatsoever, except through an uncreated version of the parks investment fund that we have not decided on yet. So, I’m going to think pretty clearly about how I vote on this. I just wanted to stand and express my support for neighborhood decision-making in general for participatory budgeting and for having a place within our municipal budget where landowners get to decide how to spend their own money.

And I will continue to advocate for that in many different ways, whether it be through this program or whatever council decides today, or through other future programs that we can develop through improvements of parks or something else. So, I’ll think about my vote. It would be great if other colleagues wanted to weigh in on this. Otherwise, I’ll be voting very quickly.

But I rise in support generally for participatory budgeting and neighborhood decision-making as a form of that. Thank you and I’ll return to chair to you with nobody on the speakers, Liz. Okay, any other speakers? Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you, I wasn’t going to speak on this, but I will just say that I am going to vote no here. And yes, on the original recommendation and all the way I understand the appeal of allowing taxpayers to have a say in how their money’s spent, I’ve heard pretty clearly in the last little while what they’d like us to do is stop spending. So, I think even for a short little while, that’s what I’ve been hearing. So, that’s how I’m going to vote.

Any other speakers? Then we’ll open this for voting. Close in the vote, motion fails, three to 12. Thank you, worship.

I’ll wait and see if either the mover or the second or the first motion want to put the original on the floor. If not, I will put the original recommendation from the working group on the floor. But I’ll defer to our mover and seconder first to give them an opportunity if they wish to do that. Go ahead, Councillor Ramen.

Thank you and through you. I’ll put the original motion on the floor, as promised. Okay, so is there a seconder for that? And then what I want to do is get the wording up so you can read it, make sure you’re good with it.

That’s all I meant, seconded. Okay, so, okay. So, if you want to just check, make sure that wording’s okay for you. And then we’ll proceed with the discussion.

Thank you, yes. Did you want to speak to it now? Okay, speakers on this particular motion, which is now in East crime. Oh, and just because this motion wasn’t on the agenda in a way where the public could see it, the motion is that civic administration be directed to bring forward a budget update for the mayor’s consideration to pause funding for the neighborhood decision-making program for the remainder of the 2024 to 2027 multi-year budget cycle.

Moved by Councillor Ramen, seconded by Councillor Lehman. Discussion on that? Councillor Frank. Thank you.

And through the chair, I just had a quick question to staff. So, this would include this year, I assume? That’s why I wanted to check the motion. So, you’re saying it should say 2025?

Thank you. I think the original says 2025 to 2027. No one objects to making that particular update was, okay, we’re just going to fix that. Same move or same seconder.

So 2025 to 2027, go ahead. Thank you, yes. I will be voting against this motion. I also have heard that residents found the property tax to be high, but I’ve not heard them wanting us to take away things to bring them joy.

And this is one of the things that the city does that actually is really exciting for the community and people get really engaged in and excited about. So, I will not be supporting this. I think there are opportunities to find cost savings and some of our very big ticket items is, of course, we know the police budget was 5% of the 8.7% increase. So, if we are looking for savings, we can find them, I think, in places that are very inflated.

Thank you. Thank you, speakers. And this is moved and seconded. It will open this for voting.

Councillor Trussell. I’m voting no. Thank you. Noted, thank you.

In the vote, motion carries nine to six. Okay, Deputy Mayor. Thank you, worship. That is the only items that needed to be reviewed from the strategic review working group to my knowledge.

So, I’m prepared to put the report from SPPC on the floor now. Yeah, so you’re gonna put the report now in its original form from SPPC on the floor. We’ve dealt with those two other items and they were independent decisions. So, that’s moved by the chair.

Any discussion on the rest of the items there? Councillor Trussell, go ahead. My question is about the community grants. Is that coming up separately or is that within this motion?

No, that’s all within this motion. It’s the entire committee report now as it was approved at committee. So, if I want to continue my position on the community grants, I would vote no on this. Did that be pulled out for a separate vote since it’s— Yes, you could pull that piece out for a separate vote if you would like to do that.

Yeah, I think it would be more clear for the record. Okay, so what we’re gonna do is, assuming no one’s making amendments, if they are, we will have a separate debate, but we’re just gonna allow discussion on the whole thing. We’ll just vote on them separate at the end. So we’ll vote on this piece and then everything else, okay?

So we will pull this out separate. Yes, Deputy Mayor? So your worship, and I’ll say the same thing, as I said at committee to Councillor Ferrer, I’m not trying to pick on Councillor Trussell here, but this was the point of my preamble, is that our objections were noted at committee. Councillor Trussell asked if he was opposed to the community grants, if he should be voting no to the report as a whole.

And honestly, the answer should have been yes, that is the simplest way to continue to register your objection rather than going through multiple votes. As I indicated in my preamble, the vote on this was nine to five. So even though there was one Councillor absent, there is not sufficient votes missing to change the outcome, which is it’s just about the efficient meeting process. And that’s what I was registering in my preamble.

Councillors could simply vote against the whole thing if they object to components of it, because we did vote on all of these things separately at the committee level and their objections were noted there on the specific pieces. I don’t disagree with your comments, but if a Councillor wants something voted on separately, I can’t actually stop them. So we’re in the process of separating unless Councillor Trossa would like to do it differently. Right now we can debate the whole thing, but I need to know if you actually want this pulled for a separate vote, Councillor Trossa.

That’s fine, I’ll just vote no on the whole package. You don’t have to do a separate vote, he’s right. Okay, yes, yes, the committee report clearly outlines the way people voted in a committee. So people can make their own decisions here.

Okay, so then we’re still debating the whole committee report, any other speakers? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. So Trossa, you wanted to speak to it. Yes, I briefly wanted to speak to it.

So it’s clear at this meeting that I continue to oppose the cuts to the community grants. I think it’s a very important program. We’ve gone into detail about this. I’m not going to spend my entire five minutes.

I was hoping that some of the other members of Councillor, my council might change their mind. Apparently that didn’t happen, but I still feel very strongly about not cutting the community grants, and they’ll be voting no on the whole package. Thank you. Okay, any other speakers?

Okay, seeing none, we’re going to open this for voting. Councillor Trossa. I’m not getting this, I’ll vote no. Thank you, noted.

Closing the vote, motion carries, 10 to five. Okay, Deputy Mayor. The last item on the 12th report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee is item eight. This is the single source award for year round arcade mission strategy, and I will put that on the floor now.

Okay, that’s on the floor. I look for any discussion, Councillors. Thank you. This all began with a letter from the mayor and deputy mayor asking for a two month extension of the cold weather response.

It was almost 700,000 from a taxpayer funded reserve fund, and it passed unanimously because we were open to possibility and wanted to hear what might be possible. I thank them for their leadership at that time, and I’m asking for it now in stopping this here with a no vote, and I’ll give my reasons why. The neighborhood doesn’t want it, and the neighborhood is worse for these paid services than it is without them. My colleague said that if when arcade was on Richmond Road, there’d been an extension for funding at that time, it would have been a hard no, because there have been improvements made now it is a yes.

Those same problems that were faced by those Richmond Road businesses last winter are being faced by the ones in Old East Village now. It is the same. It is unsustainable for the businesses and for the residents who live there. Taxpayers want us to find savings, not spends, and certainly not spends without outcomes that they want, that they appreciate, and that they can see.

Will this see fewer homeless, fewer needles improve safety? I don’t think so. Taxpayers don’t want to fund shortfalls in other government funding responsibilities. A yes today does not give your arcade mission the stability that they sought for staff retention.

We heard Ms. Campbell say that they’re already losing employees, and the London Free Press headline said 1.8 million supported by politicians to December 2024, but no promise beyond that. At AMO, we need to lobby for the second year funding for Elmwood Place, along with more hubs and more highly supportive housing as per the whole community response plan. A yes could put us in a very difficult place, come budget decisions.

Late November, as winter begins, we get to look at a potential 0.5% increase in property tax rates or closing beds and layoffs as Christmas looms or as Christmas is coming in the end of the year. Just say we get the funding or pass the budget increase to taxpayers. Come winter of 2025, 2026. I’m not sure we’re gonna be thanked for turning the cold weather beds to year-round service.

I think we’re gonna hear how come there are no beds for the winter to bring people in out of the snow. The city is aware of the oversaturation of social services in Old East Village. It was part of the core area action plan from the last council. It’s part of the core area strategic goals for this council.

We funded some because it was an emergency. It was winter. This is not that. This is a longer-term strategy to further expand the oversaturation in a designated business district.

Could this open us up to lawsuits? This was an area that was said where hubs would not go, and yet this is being referred to as a hub light put right on the main street of this business district. The funding of 1.8 million is from a reserve that is significantly below target. In fact, it’s $88 million below target, 65% below the target that we set and saw just in May.

This reserve is for unforeseen events or one-time unanticipated revenue losses and expenses. The whole community response was not part of this process and has been strangely silent. There’s been no letters of support from peer agencies. Steve Cordes from YOU on the podcast seemed to express caution in his words.

What are the implications if this is not well received by the peer organizations? This funding of 4.3 million from an unsolicited proposal. You know, we gave this a really good try. I think it’s a mistake to go further.

We have shut down beds after every winter response, and we’ve already closed 60 beds since May. 30 seconds. We won’t have to face the— if we say no, we won’t have to face the taxpayers in November with a potential tax increase or the closing of 90 beds just before winter and lay the laying off of staff, what a lose, lose situation. If we law be successfully for funds or funds are received for winter, great.

We can find solutions like in the past. If we say no, now it’s done, and we can say thank you for a job well done, and when funding is found and with a suitable location, we can move forward then. This was an unsolicited proposal with no funding source. There’s lots of risks and consequences.

What are we accomplishing with this spend of 1.8 million? OK, other speakers. Councillor Troso, is that your hand? Yes.

OK, go ahead. Well, I’m going to be supporting this. That’s no surprise. One point I really want to stress, which I don’t think we’ve discussed a lot, is— what would the street look like?

What would the neighborhood look like? What is a post-R8 situation going to look like if they are not able to keep their funding? In my opinion, it’s going to be a lot worse. It’s going to be a lot more dire.

You’re going to still have people in the area. You’re still going to have people in the area milling around and doing some of the things that the Councillor objects to. The difference is they’re going to be more hungry. They’re going to be hungry.

The difference is they’re not going to have the benefit of the day-to-day services that Arc Aid provides, which, in my opinion, helps stabilize the area. They’re not going to have the benefit of food. They’re not going to have the benefit of being able to go in and get some clothes. They’re not going to have the benefit of being able to go in and rest.

And I don’t know what services they’ll be able to provide, but to suggest that they need to move someplace else, as has been alluded to several times during this discussion, I think it’s unreasonable in light of the fact that, number one, they own the building. And number two, they’ve made extensive improvements in the building that go to their food service, and no laundry service, and other things. So I think that if you want to make the situation worse, you’re cut off the funding. And I hope this Council sticks to what we said before and supports this agency.

Thank you very much. I have Deputy Mayor Lewis next to the Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, Your Worship. So I am going to support this.

I thank Councillor Trussow for pointing out Arc Aid owns the building. There’s no obligation for them to move. The services that we’re talking about providing right now have shown that it is helping people get housed. Some of the lower acuity folks, which might be why this is being referenced more as a hublight, because hubs, of course, are meant for high acuity people.

This is serving quite a number more low or medium acuity people. Hold on. People in the gallery need to keep it down. We can hear you, especially in the top there.

We’re having a meeting. I want you to be able to stay. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor. Thank you.

As I was saying, they’re serving a different level of acuity of people. When I toured, I saw containers where people had packed up their belongings for the day and set it on their bed, because they had gone to a job. I talked to the staff and the people accessing the services there about housing. And yes, people have moved into housing.

The Arc has been helping them find some locations. Is it perfect? No. Absolutely not.

And come November. Am I going to support? Because right now, we’re looking at 8.7. I’m not going to support 9.2.

We have to find a way to address this. But what this does is gives us an opportunity to let Mr. Dickens and his team and Ms. Barbone and her team have some opportunity to talk with Arcade.

We can perhaps narrow down and look at the scope of what they’re offering and decide whether or not we need the whole thing. I mentioned at committee, I’m not convinced we need 120 daytime resting spaces, that maybe if that was smaller, some of the budget costs would come down. It also gives us the opportunity at AMO and other opportunities to lobby other levels of government. I also think we can talk about potentially some capital improvements to their building.

And perhaps this is an appropriate place to look to the Fund for Change to help fund some capital improvements that address some of the immediate streetscape concerns that come around this. But I hear— and I don’t disagree with Councillor Stevenson that we’ve had a saturation of services in the old East Village area. But I don’t think we can attribute the challenges to what’s happening at Arcade solely. And a week ago, Chief Trong had a very public press conference about the diversion of prescription drugs coming out of a couple of safe supply providers in the old East Village.

So is part of the issue here not necessarily Arcade, but perhaps some other services that are located there that are attracting challenges? And I don’t think we’ve actually looked at that seriously. Is that program causing more of the problems than the services Arcade is providing? Maybe, maybe not.

But I think we cannot attribute it all to Arcade. I think that we have to look at the fact that there are other factors in this area. And I also think it’s important to note that this is not— and I’ve seen this in a number of emails. You’re putting everything in all these village.

I have a Nova Women’s Shelter in my ward. And less than 500 meters away in Ward 3, Councillor Cuddy has the YOU Youth Shelter. I’ve got an Ontario Works Service satellite in my ward. In fact, right now, I can tell you that a well-known homeless individual in our community has his train of shopping carts parked at Dundas and Patterson in Ward 2 across from the Canadian Tire.

So these challenges are city-wide. And I know Councillor Ferrer, of course, has the Salvation Army in his ward. YOU’s Cornerstone Building and some of their support services in his ward. I know there are many others.

I’m not going to try and list them all because I’ll miss some. So these are not all in all these village. Is there a number of them? Yes.

And that’s one of the reasons why I’ve said— I think that we made a mistake when we said yes to safe space right across the road from Arcade. And that funding was not extended. So we have reduced the intensity of the service provision there. But I think what this gives us is some time to figure out a path forward, to talk to our federal and provincial representatives in government, to talk to our service providers, to talk to our staff about the scoping of this $4.3 million and see if an alternate business case— we see business case amendments all the time.

Maybe in the budget, it is half of this. But we have to, right now, give ourselves the opportunity to do a little bit more homework. That’s our Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Worship.

And thank you for the comments. I will be supporting the recommendation to support Arcade, the $1.8 million. One of the things I heard loud and clear when I was campaigning, the importance to Londoners that we deal with our housing and homeless situation, I think, by not giving Arcade this money is not going to solve the problem. And I think it’s really, really important that we— we discussed it at the committee last week.

I’m not going to go over the advocacy that our mayor is doing at FCM and the advocacy that we need to do at AMO at the next coming conference. Because one of the things we, as a municipality, we’ve got the problem. We do not have the resources. And we really need to continue advocating.

One of the things I’ve learned being on council is what I’m afraid of is we have plans. We start that process. And then we start to undermine our own policies. And I’m really very much invested that it does take time to see these solutions, to see these plans move forward.

And it takes all of us working together as well. And it takes money. And that’s where that advocacy needs to be at other levels of government. So I will be supporting staff’s recommendation.

I’ll turn the chair to Councillor Lehman. I’m next on the list. Please go ahead, Mayor. Yes, so I’ll be supporting the recommendation for us.

I think the deputy mayor spoke eloquently about the immediate need and the need for a little bit of runway to sort this out. I’ll also add to what Councillor Hopkins shared, in that these challenges are not ones that are unique to the city of London. This is a very constant and clear discussion that mayors across the country are having, mayors in Ontario are having, our agencies and organizations like FCM and AMO are discussing. And there are other communities facing different but very difficult decisions as well.

In this case, our decision is, do we spend this money now and try to figure out how to move forward? Other municipalities like Ottawa have closed multiple community centers, giving up that space for regular use and converted it into shelter space. Others are struggling with large-scale encampments and trying to manage them. Others have agencies that are willing to step up that would need a little bit of support and funding and could try to help manage things in the interim.

But ultimately, we require all levels of government to come together to tackle these. We cannot in the long run or even the medium run continue to support to the level that we are on the backs of the property tax base. It is not sustainable. So I support the current motion but I echo the cautions that have been put out there is that we need support from others to be able to manage the situation here.

And we will continue that advocacy and I think the AMO conference is a very important inflection point for the discussion that we’re having across the province. I would say I am optimistic, although I think the money needs to fall faster about some of the investments that have been announced at the federal level on support for encampments, managing encampments, that money flowing in time for the cold weather season is incredibly important. And that advocacy is very live and active as well. So there are conversations happening.

There are even investments that are being put on the table but the money needs to flow in greater numbers and it needs to flow faster. And that is the position that we take with us in our advocacy. Until then, we have difficult but necessary decisions to make here and I think this is one of them and I support the decision before us that committee has recommended. And I also support the necessity to have very difficult conversations in the budget process about our ability to continue to support this particular investment in the absence of support from others.

I’ll return to chair with Council Raman on the speakers. Council Raman. Thank you. And I appreciate the opportunity to get a chance to speak in support of the motion that’s in front of us today.

What I see in front of us today is the opportunity to leverage $1.8 million of money that we agreed to spend in February 2024. And to leverage that money for an opportunity that we have not advocated yet to the federal or provincial government to support for additional temporary beds for year round service at this location. And I think that that’s where I see a difference in our approach. We are in essence and buying ourselves a bit of time and arcade is buying themselves a little bit of time until the end of December in order for other funding partners to come to the table.

And I too am receiving the form letters initiated by an email from others around this horseshoe to get the community to get involved in this discussion. And I welcome the opportunity to have this discussion as a community. I think it’s really important. It’s why in this motion we amended it to include more community conversation around a year round approach for arcade.

And I hope that that we’re able to have that dialogue effectively because from that dialogue I’m hoping that citizens go to their MPPs and their MPs and they talk about what is going on in our community and why we need that additional support right now. I agree with my council colleagues that have said without these beds what would the situation be like? Because it’s really hard to understand and imagine what we might be facing. But I do think one of the things that we have to continue to look for is when we see proof of concept in an approach that we’re taking I think it’s important to recognize that proof of concept.

We said we learn from the lessons that need to be learned as we move through the discussions of whole of community. What we see here is arcade took on a large responsibility through cold weather response. When they took that responsibility on, they saw outcomes. They’ve seen 26 people stabilized and moved into some form of housing.

That is an outcome that we wanna see and that was over a very small window of time. So what they’re saying is give us more time, allow us to do the good work we’re doing and see further outcomes. I understand the frustrations in the neighborhood around the everyday confrontation that they have with some of the things that are less appealing in the neighborhood. I understand that.

And again, welcome the opportunity to have dialogue. And I think that what I saw in the gallery from our SPPC meeting was a lot of good generative conversation between the BIA and arcade around that partnership and willing to work together that, hey, we’re talking at 6 a.m. because we’ve got a situation. That openness, I think, is really important for where we’re heading.

And for that reason, I’ll support it right now. Again, unless other levels of government come to the table, I’m not certain I’ll support it during the multi-year budget. But for now, this is where I’m at. So we give ourselves a runway to advocate.

Councillor Lehman. - Thank you. I don’t think anyone’s disputing the good work that arcade has done, especially through winter response. I guess my concern is this, and I spoke to it at committee.

We spent a considerable amount of time and effort with staff over, no, 18 months, almost two years, organizing whole of community with over 20 social groups and professionals, devising away for London to address the problem that we see on our streets. A very unique program. The hub system came about because of that. That program we knew would require substantial funding more than the taxpayers of London could afford.

So for sure, we would be looking to, as we’ve heard in here, other levels of government stepping in. We were quite fortunate, private fundraising, especially by one donor and then the extra fundraising that leveraged that appeared. Now, through an unsolicited proposal, we have appeared to have swerved off that kind of direction. The reason I like the hub system is because went to the core of so many that are suffering our streets.

High acuity, drug addiction and mental health issues. A way to treat those very serious health issues and get folks moving on and helping them in that area to moving on eventually a goal of better housing. I acknowledge that the ARC is doing some of that work, moving them through the system, getting them off the streets. However, what I’m concerned about is the lack of that highly supportive care.

Everything I’m concerned about, and it was mentioned by Councillor Stevenson, we’re setting up expectations that we’re gonna have to deal with if the funding doesn’t materialize in the fall. This contract runs out December 31st, and there’s two renewals at a considerable price tag. Will we at that time be faced with the conundrum of, if we don’t get the funding, our tax payer is going to have to fund 4.2 million, if, or do we shut it down? That’s the case, then where’s the hub system gonna get funding?

So now we’re going to the province and feds, well, we gotta fund this, but we also need your help in funding the hub system. I think that’s gonna be a hard ask, to be honest with you. We have to decide, is this part of the hub system and that maybe where we go? I think in the next, maybe the four months, maybe we’re gonna have to morph into a different type of response other than in the hub system, and this might be part of it, or maybe the art could be a hub, I don’t know.

But I’m very cautious about veering off this path that we work so hard to get to, so I will not be supporting this motion. Other speakers? Oh, Councillor Provost, yes, I had John, let’s go ahead. Thank you.

And I will be supporting the proposal that’s in front of us, and I do see it as an opportunity to leverage and our obligation to lobby the higher levels of government to help us with the funding. Arcade, when we started the winter response, and I know it was already set here, but they were the only one who came forward with a plan for our winter, and if I look at even our whole community approach that our committee has undertaken, we so far through the hubs, we address the high acuity. And the low or medium, there was no specific plan. I believe that arcade came with that plan.

They delivered it throughout the winter. There are success stories in the number of individuals that came through there in terms of finding other opportunities, finding other housing has been really tremendously positive. So that’s all on positive side. In terms of the businesses and in terms of the area, we did stop funding for one other organization.

We are looking at last month when we looked at our encampment strategy with the meters that we have assigned. I got to tell you, and it’s not from other ones. I can see, I can state it from my experience. It has worked the best so far at all these village.

And it’s not just me, it’s either the business owners, even the people, there has been a tremendous improvement. So we are trying to alleviate the pressure from that area. No doubt, yes, arcade is in this area. They own the building.

They are doing a really good job for us. And right now, the hundreds of people, so I don’t exaggerate, hundreds of people that are on the street, most of them are low and midacuity. And this is so far what we have in front of us. And what we heard, this is the best plan.

That’s why I’m gonna support it. And yes, when I say I’m supporting it together with all of us, that’s our obligation to work even more harder to get the funding from higher levels of government because going forward with these amounts, I can see how it will be sustainable. So thank you, and I will be supporting this. Okay, that exhausts my speaker’s list.

So the Councillor Stevenson, you spoke first. Yeah, I’m just asking to have F and G pulled separately. Oh, yes, of course, we can do that. F and G can stay together though, Councillor.

Yeah, okay, good, yes. One other thing, could we correct B.I. to say that it’ll be attached to the council minutes because the budget was not attached to the council agenda, but it will be attached to the council minutes. So just that people can find it.

Clerk says that’s an administrative change, she’ll just make that. Okay, so we’re done debate. We’re gonna vote F and G first, we’re gonna do that first, and then we’ll do everything else after, okay? So we’re gonna open F and G.

The Deputy Mayor will be the mover for those ‘cause it’s part of the committee report. We’ll open that for voting now. Close in the vote, motion carries 15-0. And now we’re going to do the balance of the motion, which is everything except F and G.

And again, the wording will be corrected by the clerk, but we’re just gonna, for efficiency, just leave it there now. Okay, we’ll open that now. Close in the vote, motion carries 12-3. That concludes the 12-3 port of strategic priorities and policy committee.

I’m gonna try to do one more before any sort of break. So let’s go to planning, Councillor Layman. Thank you, Mayor. Please present the 11-3 port of the planning and environment committee.

It’s the four of you that have had no requests to have anything pulled. Just Councillor Cudi declared on number 10. So that’s the Colonel Talbot Road item. So we’ll do that separately.

Councillor Trostau, do you want something separate as well? Just do your microphone for me? Yes, I did send a note in. I would like the height report.

I’m sorry, I don’t have the number, but the height report from the consultant. The London Plan Heights review? Yes, thank you. That’s number four, we’ll do that separate.

So four and 10 so far, anybody else? Okay, Councillor Layman. I’ll move items one through 21, excluding four and 10. Okay, so everything but four and 10, any discussion?

I’m gonna turn the chair to Councillor Roman. I’m gonna make two quick comments. Thank you, I have the chair, go ahead. Yes, just my two quick comments on this report are one, I appreciate the committee’s support for updating some parameters around the office residential conversions program in the downtown.

It’s a very exciting program. I know there’s some momentum behind it. Staff have been engaging and when we launched this, we said we were going to make some adjustments and some corrections along the way to ensure that the incentive program truly incentivizes in the way that we want. I appreciate the work that staff is done.

I’m very supportive of that piece. The other thing I’ll say is in general, we’ve been putting a lot of units through the planning committee report. One development was 3800. Subsequent meeting was another 1100.

This one has about 1600. There’s a lot of units being approved here. And so that’s a testament to the good work of both our staff, the development community who is bringing forward applications. This is a collaboration where we all work together to create the units that we need.

What we’re seeing through the work of the partnership in the city is these things moving through a process that yes, I know everybody thinks it could go faster, but we’re approving significant numbers of units this year versus previous years. And I really feel like there’s a momentum here. When I talk to some of my mayoral colleagues, they’re seeing a bit of a stall. Well, people await interest rates and other pressures.

It feels like things are still moving at full steam here. I think that’s a very positive for our community. It’s getting noticed by the provincial government. I know that the premier called me, well, as I rocked the park, he was asking me if I was at a party.

I said yes, but actually specifically was wanting to talk about the number of units that we were generating, creating, because he had read some media articles. So I appreciate the work of the planning committee, our staff, and the development community for bringing forward units across the city. Thank you, returning the chair to you with no one on the speaker’s list. Okay, other speakers to the general items in the planning committee report with the exception of four and 10.

Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Go ahead, chair. I’ll move item four, the one in plan, heights review.

Okay, the heights review number four is on the floor. Discussion on that? Councillor Rossell, go ahead. Yes, I’ll keep this very, very brief.

I addressed this at the committee, which I visited. I can’t support this, and the reason for it is, I think the report was flawed in that on its face, it made it very clear that the consultants consulted, the consultants consulted extensively with the development community. They did not consult with neighbors with neighborhood associations or anyone else. No, I do realize that this is going to come up through later public participation meetings.

But I think what happened here was they, it was a very one-sided approach, it was not balanced. And now when I hear members of council and other commentators saying, “This landed in about the right place,” and we think, “This is what we want to do,” I really worry about the efficacy of the upcoming public participation process. What I’m very worried about is, people are going to look at this and they’re going to say, “You know, this council has already made up its mind.” And I always tell people when I hear that, “No, you’ve got to be engaged.” But I just think that this report was too one-sided, and I cannot be supporting this. And I hope that more information will come out during the public participation process.

And thank you for pulling that from me. No problem, I don’t have any other speakers to this. So with that, we’re going to open this for voting. Anybody, yes?

No, thank you, closing the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Go ahead, Chair. Thank you, and I’ll put item 10 on the floor, I’ll move that. All right, I don’t sense on the floor, I need discussion on this particular item.

Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero with one recuse. Thank you, Mayor, that concludes the 11th report of the Planning Environment Committee. We’re going to do corporate services too, so I’ll go to Councilor McAllister.

Thank you, and through the Chair, I have to present the 12th report of the Corporate Services Committee. I’ve had no prior notice to have anything pulled. So I’m willing to put one through seven on the floor. That’s the entire committee report on the first off, say, but do you want anything dealt with separately?

Okay, so the entire committee report is on the floor. Any discussion? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

It includes the report, thank you. Thank you, okay, so the next item has a couple of things that colleagues want to be pulled with separately. I would appreciate it, although I know Councilor sometimes vote against this. I need about 10 minutes to confer with the city manager on a matter.

Would colleagues indulge me by allowing for a 10 minute recess? Okay, I need to move by Councilor Stevenson, seconded by Councilor Palosa. We’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Okay, 10 minutes, okay, thanks, please be seated. Thank you for that indulgence colleagues, I appreciate it. We will move on to the next report. So that is the ninth report of the Community and Protective Services Committee.

I’ll turn it over to the Chair to present. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have moved my seat because my computer has failed.

So I’m just kind of getting things together. But I am pleased to present the ninth report of the Community and Protective Services Committee. And I have had a request to pull item. Sorry, just bear with me.

I had seven, eight. So eight, 12, and 13. I’m pulling item eight and 12. And I had a request to pull, sorry, item 14 from the Deputy Mayor.

And I haven’t received that. Okay, I lost track there. Did you say seven, eight, 12, 13, and 14? That’s eight, 12, and 14 are the items that I had pull requests.

Eight, 12, and 14, okay, others? You get that list again, please, you work so far. The Chair said eight, 12, and 14. Item 13, please, okay.

Eight, 12, 13, and 14. Anything further? So right now we’ll do with eight, 12, 13, and 14 separately. Okay, go ahead.

Thank you. So I will be pleased to move items one through seven, nine through 11. And that’s it, I’ll move those. Okay, those are on the floor by the Chair.

Any discussion on those ones? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed and vote, motion carries, 15 to zero. Oh, Councilor Ploza, you’re presenting this one?

Thank you, Your Worship. As discussed, I’ll be presenting number eight and 12. I’m gonna put eight number eight on the floor, being 2.8, the Vision SoHo Amendment to Contribution Agreement, with Chelsea Agree and Community Home Society. I’ll note, Councilor Ferra has pre-circulated a motion that should be in your inbox’s 2.15 stamp mark today, which he will introduce now.

Okay, go ahead, Councilor Ferra. So I’ll just say, Councilor Ploza has put the committee recommendation on the floor and the floor is yours to make any adjustments that you were thinking of doing. Thank you. So I will start with, this has been discussed with staff and has been clerked and has gone through the city solicitor.

And that process is the reason why you saw this come a little bit late. So I apologize for the late circulation, but we did get that circulation in your inboxes. So if you had a chance to check, if you haven’t, I will just give a brief description. This is for an amendment for the Chelsea Green Association.

They’re one of the six partners of the Vision SoHo group. And they have brought us a communication, basically telling us that they’re waiting on a tax exempt status, which the recommendation for the committee right now is releasing funds for their soil remediation after they receive the tax exempt status. So basically— Okay, I’m gonna, I know you, that’s a good description. I need you to do your amendment on the floor and then you can provide the rationale.

So if you wanna, because I don’t think the public has seen your amendment, if you could, I’m gonna need you to read it out in its entirety and then I’ll ask for a seconder and then I’ll let you continue discussing. I can do that. Let me just grab it. Sorry again, I just had to make some switch on the computers and I just got things up and running.

All right, so I am moving this amendment and I will read it out. So that is, that with respect to the Vision SoHo amendment to the contribution agreement with Chelsea Green Community Homes Society, following actions be taken. A, the civic administration be authorized to release funds attributed to the roadmap grant and soil remediation for giveable loan to an upset limit of 1.281,219,000. It being noted that the amendment contribution is $51,249 per unit for 25 units with 12 units with 12 filled from the city’s waitlist.

And B, the civic administration be authorized to release the remaining roadmap grant of a total of $476,332 as outlined in the municipal contribution agreement upon confirmation of 41 total affordable units for this project to achieve an average per unit contribution of $42,867 and C. The civic administration be directed to amend the municipal contribution agreement to reflect the change under the existing delegation. Okay, the seconder for that, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Okay, so that’s a moved and seconded amendment to the committee’s recommendation.

I’ll let you make your case now start the timer. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So basically we got a communication from Chelsea Green indicating that they may be in a cash crunch situation because they did have to pay out soil remediation costs for their property or for their section of the Vision SoHo Alliance.

The way the municipal contribution agreement came from the committee recommendation has those funds to be released after they receive a tax exempt status. Right now they’re waiting on a court decision, not one that they’re involved with, but a one that is similar that will impact this decision for them to see where that goes. And they’re hopeful that this court decision will go in their favor, so then they would be able to get that tax exempt status. Considering that they are in a cash crunch right now, I have concerns that we may see construction stop for one of the six SoHo partners.

So this is why I’m bringing the motion forward so we can release those funds so we don’t see any impacts to their construction. Okay, I’ll look for other speakers to this on the amendment. Seeing none, then we’ll open the vote on the amendment. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Okay, and I need to move for the as amended motion. I’ll go, Councillor Ferra, seconded by Councillor Palosa. Any discussion on the as amended motion? Okay, I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis, and then I’ll go to Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you, Your Worship. I just want to rise and take an opportunity to thank Councillor Ferra for the work he’s done addressing this over the last few days. This is the second time a situation like this has occurred at SoHo. There was a similar problem last year that I was involved in helping address.

This time we were able to involve Councillor Ferra right at the start and he’s taken the ball and run with it and brought this back. I’m happy to second it and appreciate the work ‘cause I know he worked over the weekend and through yesterday to figure out all the fine details to get this done. So I just want to give credit where credit is due ‘cause obviously the vision SoHo, the SoHo Alliance is in Ward 13. It’s gonna be a game changer in terms of our affordable housing and our housing targets.

So it’s critical we keep moving these projects forward and the word Councillor has made sure that that’s gonna happen with this motion. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I just have a question ‘cause it looks as though the confirmation of the property tax exemption is no longer part of the motion.

Is that correct? So the motion is as it’s read. If there’s a question about that, we can have our staff who worked with Councillor Ferra confirm, which I’m gonna look to now, Mr. Mathers.

Thank you, Your Worship, so the component related to the tax exempt status in our mind and what we’re really focused on is getting those units. So there might be other reasons beyond that and why they can’t provide the total of 41 units. We provided in this language is they have said that with their current funding and this additional funding, they can provide the 25. If they’re able to provide those additional 16 units, then they’ll be able to access this funding.

Beyond that, it gives more comfort that can be added in. However, there could be a number of different reasons why they can’t provide those additional 16 units and either way we can have the flexibility with the revised recommendation of it before you. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you.

My question was around in the original motion for B, it said that the authorized to release the remaining funds for soils and grants as outlined in the contribution agreement on confirmation of property tax exemption. So I just don’t see that in this new motion and I’m wondering why that’s come off or what the possible risks are to taking that off. Mr. Mathers.

Through the chair, there are no additional risks of removing it. The agreement requires them at this point to construct 41 units and we would provide them the full amount. This change allows for them to provide a smaller number of units and we’d have to go back make those adjustments to the agreement and provide an increased amount to them. It was very important in the previous version to be able to include that because we didn’t have a differential per unit value that was being provided to them.

It was 42,000 for every single unit. Now that we have this differential and it’s spelled out in the resolution, it makes it so you don’t need to have to incorporate that other portion of the original recommendation. Councillor Stevenson. Okay.

Any other questions or comments? So this is on the as amended motion now for full approval. We’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote.

Motion carries 15 to zero. Go ahead. Thank you. I will now put item 12 being 2.11.

The draft advocacy message signed by-law on the floor realizing I believe Councillor Ferrer is prepared with a motion on this one as well. Okay. Councillor Ferrer. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. So I will move this motion. It’s a referral motion. So I’ll read that referral out for council.

So the motion is that the draft advocacy message signed by-law be referred, just a second. Okay, sorry. That the draft of boxy message signed by-law be referred to civic administration in order to bring forward a draft by-law related to graphic images only. Yeah.

So this is slightly different motion. This is a referral motion. So this is a motion to refer back for that purpose. We’ll add in kind of all the it being noted clauses to it as well, so that they’re taken care of.

That’s moved by Councillor Ferrer as a seconder for that. No seconder for referring it. There’s no referral, Councillor Ferrer. So we’re back to the original motion, which is the committee’s recommendation, which colleagues will see before.

I’ll look for speakers on the committee’s recommendation. That’s a very mirror again. You can go ahead first. The fact is, when it comes to this, and this came before us not that long ago, and some of us spoke to it then, but the fact is those who are protesting, for their point of view, have very deeply, deeply held beliefs, and they are quite entitled under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to express those beliefs.

And yes, that includes signs with graphic images. We happen to be so privileged to live in a nation that is a free society, a democratic modern society that allows this full breadth and scope of a variety of speech, a variety of expressions. And to ensure that stays with us, it’s enshrined, enshrined in the Canadian Constitution. And we have to be so careful that we don’t inadvertently start tripping away some of these rights and landing ourselves into protracted court action.

Living in a democracy is sometimes hard. We have to see and hear things that we find distasteful. We don’t agree with. But in the end, that’s what being in an open, free society is all about.

And we have to cherish that. No matter what side of this debate that you’re on, you must be pro-speech, pro-expression. It can only be described with this council, these protesters, these people who are putting forward their beliefs and their views, have been doing this for decades in London. They’re not violent, they’re very peaceable.

They don’t interrupt traffic. So even going down the path of trying to limit, so many centimeters for a sign, can’t do this, can’t do that, is in of itself a restriction, a restriction on speech. So let’s not poke the bear and continue to poke the bear. The bear, of course, is the Canadian Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Let’s stop poking that bear. And the best thing we can do is simply vote down this motion. It’s not like this happened last night. This has been going on for decades.

And now we’re trying to figure out how we can kind of restrict them in some fashion. It’s not right, it’s wrong-headed, and it’s a wrong move. So I would certainly urge that we vote this down and simply be done with it. This is not a priority.

Certainly, I have not had one complaint about these peaceable people exercising their rights. Thank you. Councilor Freire. Thank you, Mayor.

So I’m gonna just give an explanation of where I’m at, and it might just explain why you saw my failed attempt at the referral. But yes, I agree. We are in a free and democratic society, and we have a charter. We have a charter of rights and freedoms that protect our core rights.

And one of those core rights is section two, be freedom of expression. However, speech is free, and it is supposed to be able to go out and people are able to express themselves. But there are some types of speech that can be harmful. And that’s really kind of the whole focus on this.

Now, the first bylaw that we saw, or the first report that we saw in the graphic images, I wasn’t really too happy of that, because I saw that it didn’t minimally impact section two, be of the charter. So that’s why we sent it back. We had another bylaw come through. That was the advocacy messaging bylaw, which was a content neutral bylaw.

Really well thinking out of the box, I really appreciate the thinking that the staff brought through. But I still have my fears with that, because content neutral approach has no content. And it really focuses on as the last council that spoke, the size of the signs, and the locations of the signs. And when you have no content, in my opinion, that is synonymous with all content.

So we are trying to minimally impact the freedom of expression with section two, be, but with the draft advocacy messaging signed bylaw with the no content, which means all content, in my opinion, we are maximally impacting the charter. And that’s was my fear on that. So that’s why you saw my last referral to push that away, because I just thought that that just opens up way more cans of worms that we were looking at. We wanted to open up one can of worms, and look into that, this one opens all of them.

So this is why you saw what I brought through. I respect the charter fully through and through. This is why I have been really being diligent on this work, on this item alone, because I wanted to ensure that we are going on the right path to ensure that people are able to express themselves as freely and as openly as they can, but also to create that safe space for people who are already making decisions when it comes to this bylaw that is life changing, life changing decisions. So we want to ensure that we don’t have factors outside of within the home when someone has to make a very tough choice to also really kind of drive that in.

So that’s why you saw what I brought before. And this is a motion to refer back to staff to make it better, because I’m still not necessarily happy with the way that report was with the graphic images bylaw. So that’s what the intent is. So the way the motion is with the recommendation from the committee, I’m not happy with that.

I do want to still continue looking into seeing how we can make the graphic images bylaw a little bit better. So I’m not sure how to do that if we can, I don’t know if we can split that vote. That’s the position, that’s why you saw the referral come through the way it did. In the end, I would ultimately like to refer the entire thing.

I do have a backup motion. I don’t know what the appetite of counsel is on that because I did see that no one wanted to second my first one. So maybe I shouldn’t put that referral on, but I do want to see this motion have a little bit more work because we’re on the right track, we’re just not there yet. So if you can split it up, I would appreciate that.

I would like to vote on one part and vote down the other. Just give me one second, Councillor. Okay, so I’m just going to correct a small error I made procedurally. I shouldn’t have gone to Councillor Van Mierberg and after you, I should have gone back to you after you pitched.

You tried to move a referral, there was no seconder. You still had the floor at that point. I should have went back to you, Councillor, and said you can continue speaking rather than moving to another Councillor and back. So this is considered your first speaking, those two things together.

So if you’re looking to, you actually did not move anything as no one seconded it. So if you’re looking to move something else, this is part of your one time speaking at council and you should do it now. If you want someone else to do it, your turn speaking on this matter will be over when your time is up or you release the floor. So you’re at three minutes and I think 45 seconds or so right now.

Thank you, Mayor. That’s okay. For the referral, like I do have a backup referral but I do see like just with the way the first one went, I don’t want to waste any time. If some other Councillor would like to refer the entire motion to committee, I will second that.

But that’s all I have. Okay, thanks, Councillor. So you’re done? Other speakers?

Councillor McAllister. Thank you and through the mayor. So I appreciate all the discussion we’ve had on this. I appreciate what staff’s brought forward, trying to keep it neutral.

We had a very good discussion committee about this. Where I’m at with it currently is, I like the neutral approach honestly and I think that kind of echoes some of the things I heard from my colleagues as well. I did add in section B, which was an amendment committee. And for me personally and to Councillor Van Riggins point, I still think informed consent is something that I hold dear in a free and democratic society as well.

And for me, the issue is not having disclosure and consent present when images are displayed that I think are of graphic nature. I think as citizens, we have the right to choose. And if I’m entering an area, there’s a protest, I agree. People absolutely have that right to protest, but I would like to be able to make the determination, whether it’s something that I want to see.

So that’s where I’m at with that. I tried to make the language very clear in terms of what I had heard in terms of the issues that my residents had expressed. That’s something that I want to take to the PPM. I’m curious what the feedback we get from the public in terms of whether that coincides with what we see city-wide or if that’s more just what I’ve heard in terms of things especially around the hospital.

So that was my addition. I still think we should move forward with it. Have a PPM. Again, I think that we owe it to the public to have that open discussion.

I think the neutrality approach is the best way to go ‘cause I personally want to hear feedback from a variety of groups and not just where we originally started this from. So that’s where I’m at. I’d like to see this move forward for now. And then once we’ve had the PPM make any changes that we’ve heard from the public after that.

Thank you. The speakers. So we’re purple and then Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you.

As I get affected, immigrated to Canada from a communist country. Any freedoms that are taken away from people such as expressing themselves in a peaceful way to public places, I will never support. I do think that when we already talked about it and I do appreciate the content neutral from the staff, I do appreciate that. But in the meantime, I already had, I heard from some other councils that there should be certain exemptions.

And then when we get to the exemptions, I think we are totally, we are not on the right track. We are on a very wrong track. I do think if I look at currently our bylaws in terms of enforcement, I really do think that we all know that our enforcement is already stretched and this one would be even more additional challenging to it. What we hear from other municipalities that they are going through certain legal issues and I think that there will be again, additional work for our staff and additional expenses as well.

I don’t believe that this is a municipal issue. I really don’t believe so. I think that we are already how much time we have spent on this so far. And I don’t think this is the issue we should focus on.

And I know it was already stated here, but I really don’t in terms of our top priorities of this council when we were door knocking or during these times, during the last whatever year and a half, this has never been on top of the list. So I will not support it. I don’t support it at this committee. And I hope the reasons I listed, please do keep that in mind when this comes to voting and I hope that you are not going to support this.

And let’s really, after so many hours already spent and so much effort, if you look at the future, not a municipal issue, other municipalities who have agreed to certain similar or same, they are going through legal issues, additional expenses, enforcement. Please keep this all in mind in the big picture. And I hope you will not be supporting it and will finally put this to bed. And we are going to focus on the things that half a million of Londoners want us to focus on.

Thank you. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. So I rise today having been on this issue a long time.

Pretty much since I arrived in this building, I seconded a communication from Councillor Palosa to address the door to door mailings. And although that process was long, we did get to a resolution that was acceptable. And I think there is where the informed consent piece that Councillor McAllister expressed his concerns about is really important because that’s an intrusion into people’s homes. I have read the in-camera reports.

I’m not going to speak to what’s in them, of course. But I will say that based on what I have read and based on where we are in this discussion today, I’m not prepared to go any further with this. I think that there are a number of serious, serious legal considerations at play. And I would echo as well what Councillor Pribble said, as soon as I started hearing people say, well, the content neutral one will require some exemptions.

Well, then it’s a bad one to start with. If we have to start exempting something on day one, then that’s not a road I’m prepared to support either. So I was very supportive in dealing with the door to door mailings. I, you know, and Councillor Ploza and myself actually had asked for some billboard and other signage updates that was left over on the agenda from the last council.

And then this council picked it up through community protective services, asked for more. But based on where we are today, to me, I feel like we’re at the limit of our authority as a municipality with regard to regulating these things. And so I’m not prepared to support any further action on this. I’m happy to receive the staff report, but I don’t need a report back.

I don’t need a PPM on a bylaw because at this point, I think we’re just setting ourselves up for failure. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And I will be supporting the recommendation coming out of committee.

And I too have been around with the conversation when it came to the door to door flyers. And yes, it was a long drawn out conversation, but I think it was an important conversation to be had in the community. I strongly, we shouldn’t presuppose the outcome. And I think that’s what we’re doing here.

And I would rather have the process unfold. I just wanna point out to a few comments I’ve heard about freedom of speech and we in this public space do not allow those rapid flyers come into this building. So it is not free for all. There are certain rules that we hold very dearly.

And a big part of that is creating a safe city, a safe space for all of us. But in particular, providing supporting women and girls when it comes to their health. I feel very, very strongly that we do need to understand maybe not all agree, but to have that conversation in the community is important. That’s why we’ll be supporting it.

Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I fully support our right to freedom of expression, full stop. And I will not support any infringement on that.

I agree with what my colleagues have shared who’ve said, you know, looking forward to voting no on this and being done with it. Freedom of expression, full stop. That is us. And let’s get Councillor Troose out, go ahead.

Thank you very much. I’m going to be supporting the ability of the public to come to a public participation meeting and give their views. I think there are a couple of different ways we could be doing this. There’s the content neutral size of sign approach.

There’s the graphic image approach, which is what we did with the door-to-door flyers. We had a very long discussion with the door-to-door flyers. It was very similar to what’s being said here today. And the argument was made that this infringes freedom of expression, which it did, but it’s saved by section one, okay?

And there’s a very, very well-set out test for whether or not a technical violation of freedom of expression can be excused. And we went through this in the last council and we came up with a good compromise. I think we can do the same thing here. I think of the streets in highway traffic by law, which by the way, is an absolutely core municipal function.

So if you’re trying to say this is not a municipal issue, that’s just, I just think that’s dead wrong, because what we’re talking about are these signs that are actually placed on the street and beating people on sidewalks. And at the very least, I want to give the public the opportunity to come out at a public participation meeting and talk about the effect that it has on them when they are driving by in a car and see these horrendous images, just like we did with the door. So I think we are not at the point where we have to make a decision today on the by-law. I think the important decision that we have to make today is whether or not we want to put these various approaches before the public and give them a chance to come out to a public participation meeting.

And it’ll be like the last one. There’ll be a lot of people talking from a bunch of different perspectives. But I think we would be cutting short an important public policy issue in this city. If we just say, let’s just kill this today and not go any further.

So I am fully supporting the committee recommendation. I made the amendments at the committee to broaden it, whether it’s one of the problems with the content neutral approach is now you’re really, you’re really multiplying the number of groups who might want to come out and challenge this. And the reason I think exemptions might be important in that regard is for things like people who are out on the street legally in a strike situation. There would have to be exemptions.

Personally, I think the graphic images display, we already have worked out a good definition of graphic images which we have in our by-law. By the way, we were threatened quite a bit during that first by-law discussion. The city of London has not been challenged on that. And I think we can adopt the same approach here.

So all I’m saying today is let’s let this proceed. If we are going to pass a measure that has an implication for freedom of expression, we have very, very high burden to justify it under section one. And the first element of that, of course, is that we have a legitimate interest in doing that. And then it be narrowly tailored.

And it not be over-broad. And it be proportionate. We need a public participation meeting to get information from the public to inform that decision. So I think what we want to do with this is we don’t need to debate this anymore in terms of whether we want to do a by-law or not.

Let’s do that after. We give the public the chance to weigh in with a public participation meeting. So I would like to see that scheduled as soon as possible and we’ll proceed from there. Thank you very much.

So there’s no clapping or any other sound from the audience. We appreciate that you may like some things that are said. You may not like some things that are said. So we just keep it calm and neutral.

Signs are fine, but noise is not. So I appreciate everybody proceeding that way. Other speakers, comes for area to question about dividing it. You can go ahead on that, but I know you’ve already spoken but you can ask me the question about dividing.

Thank you, Mayor. Are you able to divide that vote? Tell me which way you want it to be divided. And then I can tell you the answer.

I am not in favor of voting for the draft advocacy messaging by-law, but I would like to refer the graphic images back to staff to see if we can do some work. So I would want to vote for that one and against the first one. Yeah, I don’t think I can let you divide A and B because they’re inherently linked the way the committee brought it forward. It seems like B refers directly to content within A.

And if you only wanted to do one of those, the proper course of action in A would have been to amend out one of the pieces that you didn’t want to do, but you’ve already spoken. So kind of in a spot here where I think it’s pretty hard to divide up given the way that the committee’s constituted it together. That’s all right. Just, I guess, post it the way it is and I’ll vote on it like that.

So we’re going to proceed with it altogether. And again, this is for colleagues working at committee. Sometimes motions may be in A and B, but they’re inherently tied to very hard to divide up. So just be conscious of that when you’re making motions at committee and how you want to give options to council.

Go ahead, Councillor Layman. Thank you. I’ll just quickly weigh in here. I don’t want to repeat too much of what has been said.

Yeah, we’ve dealt with this Deputy Mayor Lewis referenced that in the last term of council. I believe this is clearly outside our legislative jurisdiction. Freedom of speech is covered very well by our charter. And I think for us to dip our toe in that waters is a mistake, not just from worry about legal challenges, but I think just from staying within our lane.

This is a federal responsibility enforcing a charter. And if you want to make people want to make changes at that, I would suggest they go to the rampies and pressure the federal government to make changes from that standpoint. So I will not be supporting that. Okay, all the speakers I had on this.

This is on the committee recommendation in its entirety. So I’m going to open that for voting. Close in the vote, motion fails, five to 10. Okay, back to Councillor Frara on the committee report.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So that leaves us with item 13 that was pulled. That’s the renovations, renovation, license, relocation, by-law changes, public comments received to date.

Okay, so that’s on the floor. This is item 13, 3.1, the committee’s recommendation. I’ll look for speakers to that. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, worship. So I asked to have this pulled. I supported the draft by-law that staff brought forward which is section A of that two amendments were made at committee clauses B and C, which I don’t support. And I would like those to be called separately, although they can be called together.

I would like them called separately from A. And I’m going to be, I want to take a couple minutes to share why. I think that in part A, licensing for a renovation that requires an N13 is absolutely, not only within our ability as a municipality, because we issue all kinds of licensing, business licensing, we do building permits, all those kinds of things. It’s very clear we can do this.

And to me, it is also something that’s fairly clear cut. In terms of getting an engineer report, sign off, submitted, the permit gets approved, the fee gets paid, they can do the renovation situation, renovate the apartment. The tenant still has the rights under the Residential Tenancies Act in Ontario to return. They do have rights under the Residential Tenancies Act for seeking out alternate accommodation or top-ups, but that is within the Residential Tenancies Act.

And that is where I struggle to see how as a municipality, we can operationalize and enforce decisions with some level of expertise under the Residential Tenancies Act. I really think that that is the purview of the landlord tenant board. When we start talking about alternate accommodations, I’ve heard colleagues and members of the public suggest it needs to be in the same neighbourhood. We have a 1.7% roughly vacancy rate in our community right now.

There may not be anything in the same neighbourhood, but that doesn’t mean that the renovation might not still be necessary. So we have, obviously I understand why people on the tenant side want this, but there’s also the flip side of the fact that we need to allow renovations sometimes to happen. Not always, there are a lot of bad faith ones, which is why we have the by-law in front of us in the first place. The report we had from our staff provided a cost, it’s not zero, but I’m happy to support that because I think it’s a good investment to start licensing these things and have our by-law beefed up on that.

But what the report didn’t cover, and I know this is a report back, but what are the additional costs and where are we gonna find the expertise to start determining whether the alternate accommodations are adequate enough to meet the threshold under the Residential Tenancies Act. That really is for the landlord tenant board. And when we start talking about in clause C, reporting back on how we can apply this retroactively, I don’t need a staff report back, I don’t need to go in camera for legal opinion. I know from my own experience, when we start to try to apply things retroactively, we put ourselves on a very slippery slope to having the by-law quashed entirely because you can’t, in fairness, start applying things in hindsight to things that have already happened.

We just talked about, and we didn’t move forward with it, but we just talked about a graphic signed by-law. We couldn’t retroactively apply that to some of the offensive signs that I saw on the parade route for Pride on Sunday. Nor should we try it. We can’t go back and find people for those signs.

If we had approved a by-law like that, retroactively. And I think that that same principle applies here. So I’m very supportive of Part A. I recognize it’s not as far as Acorn and some of the tenant advocates would like us to go, but I think it is a step in the right direction.

I think the B and C, however, are overstretching our ability as a municipality to address, and so I won’t be supporting those. Before I look to other speakers, I just have my own question for staff. Since there’s a request to divide this up, and maybe Mr. May, that you can help, my, our understanding currently, unless we’re wrong, is A and all the Ip being noted, particularly the one that refers to amendments brought forward, those are linked, like that that Ip being noted is referring to A, not B and C.

If that’s the case, I can do A and all the Ip being noted, and then I can do B and C separate, but I wanna make sure that the first Ip being noted isn’t referring to things in B and C, I’m unclear enough that the committee added that. Through your worship, you are correct. Okay, so A and all the Ip being noted can be moved together and then B and C separate, okay. I just, preparing the division while we have the debate.

Other speakers to this particular item. Yes, Councillor Ferrer, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

So we did some good work, in my opinion, at committee with these extra clauses. I do fully support A, that is the staff recommendation, and I thought that was a very good step. For the temporary alternate accommodations, you know, we do see that there are some of our peer municipalities, Hamilton specifically, they have enacted and put that into force and effect. So it does seem to be something that we are able to do within our discretion in our jurisdiction.

And I would also comment to, you know, a lot of renovations that you see, there’s a couple of aspects that I see that would still support this. And there’s the, you know, a landlord can renovate around a tenant. They can do work while a tenant is in place. It’s very rare that you will see such a severity to the condition and the standards of the unit that someone would be in, where they would have to vacate.

And usually I would see in the past, if you look to the property increase system, you can see some of these, if you know the story behind them, but you can see that these renovations are done very quickly. So if there is an N13, where someone would have to leave, that would be a very temporary short-term thing, where only the issues that are really in the face of it all, that are actually pushing a tenant that has to leave to do that work, that’s a short-term thing, for the most part. It would be very rare that you would see it go over a year. You do see some landlords who are using just the way a legislation is right now extending that and then adding in a whole bunch of other things.

You know, with the mindset of while we’re here, we do have to replace that big hole in the ground, but we might as well do all the baseboards, do the paint, plus do up the bathroom and all that. And that’s really not what we want to see, because we want to keep tenants in place. On top of that, with also being able to work around, a lot of landlords do have extra units, sometimes in the same building, that they’re serving N13’s to prospective tenants that they want to terminate the tenancy for. They can move a tenant from that one unit to the other unit in the same building.

That minimally impacts the tenants’ grievance in that situation. So there are these cases, oh, and I would add, there’s insurance policies that you can get as a landlord. That will cover the temporary accommodation. You can have an insurance policy where you’re paying your premiums and it will cover situations like that too.

So there’s all these little aspects that you can kind of account for, which is why I wouldn’t be supporting part B. For part C, I do have the same concerns as the deputy mayor of applying anything retroactively. I do know that that is probably a hard thing to do if something that we can’t do altogether. But I would point out that both of these extra items on that original motion is a report back to see if it’s something that’s doable.

So we are still researching and seeing if we can do the things that you see in this motion. So I’m gonna support this full motion as it is. I would also point out that I did here on some other items that we spoke to. London has 500,000 people.

They want us to focus on specific things. One of these, this specific item right here is amongst the top category of where Londoners want us to focus on. We just gave $1.8 million to the arc for the last item to extend through the year. This would cost around $550, $600,000 for a full year for the administration cost to apply this.

And this is something that is also connected very much to the big strategic priorities that we are trying to accomplish. That is keeping people in their housing. With our work on health and homelessness, we have one side where we’re trying to help people who have lost their housing already, but we’re also trying to stop the bleeding where it’s at. This is what this motion does.

This stops people from becoming homeless. This keeps people in their house. It is the cheapest, the most effective way as a municipality when we’re speaking at financially speaking, and it also reduces the stress and anxiety of our Londoners. We want our Londoners to have confidence that they are able to stay in the place that they’re at.

We want them to enjoy their lives. We don’t want them to be worrying about this. This motion is probably one of the pinnacle pieces that’s gonna come out of this council. The way it is right now.

So I would strongly ask you to support this at this moment and support it through as we get our reports back. This is going to be the keystone of this term. Okay, other speakers, Mr. Cutty, go ahead.

Thank you, we’re shipping through you. My Deputy Mayor Lewis and I put the motion together months ago, we did it because there really wasn’t anything in place protecting our tenants in the city. And I look up to some of my residents and we’re on Webster Street. I see them in the gallery today.

And they know what I’m talking about. Since that time, your worship, this motion and now this by-law has given a great deal of protection to people. And I’ve been told that it has. And it’s already started to have an effect and it’s not even in place yet.

But one thing we can’t do your worship is we can’t be punitive to the very good landlords that we have in the city. And we have many. We have some rogue landlords, which we’d experienced from Webster Street, but we have some also some very good landlords. And to the point that Deputy Mayor Lewis mentioned, we have to be careful that we don’t infringe on the good landlords, that we don’t hurt them while we’re trying to control those that want to be punitive to our tenants, to our citizens.

So your worship, I won’t be supporting B&C. I think it is a punitive measure. And what I would like to do is I would like to encourage all of my council colleagues to support the rest of the motion and to applaud our staff for the great work they’ve done in putting this together to listening to our citizens and to our constituents and putting together what I think your worship is one of the best motions or one of the best bylaws for tenant protection in the country. Thank you.

Councillor Troasau, go ahead. Thank you. I won’t be speaking in favor of the entire motion that came out of the committee. I don’t think there’s anything in this by-law that’s punitive.

And I don’t think there’s anything that’s in this by-law is a stretch. And in fact, the retroactivity issue is creating some concerns, but we have people who have already been served with the notices. And this is nearly asking staff if they could think of any possible way that we could try to help them. In terms of the accommodation piece, I really disagree with the assessment that this is the best by-law that’s on the table because the Hamilton one is much better.

And we see that there are other by-laws around the country, New Westminster, that include something like the accommodation piece. One of the points of this by-law is if the landlord needs to be doing renovations, try to get him done as quickly as you can. And preferably if you can get it done with a tenant in there, which means getting to this work before it gets so dire that the tenant has to move, that’s a positive. So there’s a lot of really good public policy underlying all of these provisions.

Now, certainly if we simply pass the one that came from staff without the accommodation piece or the question of how we can provide some protections to existing tenants who have received notices, that’s fine. And I’ll support that and it’s better than nothing. But I think we’re being too worried about the effect of these additions. Because once again, like in the last matter, we’re not enacting this this evening.

We’re asking staff to give these two additional add-ons some additional consideration. And if they come back and say, we can’t do it, or we’re not willing to do it, or we think it’s too risky, fine. We’ll take it from there and pass the by-law as it is. But I think it would be premature, especially what we heard at the public participation meeting, which was very, very strong.

It was very, it really pointed to the fact that we have a lot of tenants out there that have already received these notices that need some protection. And it also pointed to the fact that if the tenants are going to have to vacate the unit during the renovations, they’re going to have to be accommodated. There needs to be some top up. Otherwise, they’re just going to be out there who knows how long it’ll take.

And eventually, it’ll go away. I mean, that’s what the landlords are counting on. This is not punitive against landlords who are complying with the rules. This is not punitive against landlords.

It doesn’t even affect landlords who have maintained their units all along. This only affects units that have not been maintained all along. You don’t get yourself into a renovation situation unless you haven’t been maintaining your units. And I think that we have a lot of really responsible property owners and management companies that take great care to maintain their units.

And I’ve spoken to a lot of landlords. This by-law is not going to affect them. And certainly the marginal difference between the adults and what was in the staff report, I think is very, very minor. We’ve had a very compelling public participation meeting.

We’re asking staff to do a little bit more work on this. At the committee, we were told by staff they could come back in September. Let’s see what the staff comes back with. And at that point, we can make the final determination on how we’re going to proceed with this by-law.

But I think it would be premature to rule out some of the other options that would strengthen it at this point. So with that, I’m just going to say I’m going to be supporting the committee report. Again, yes, staff has done fantastic work on this. The turnaround time was great.

But we’ve also got other cities who have come before us on this. And I think that there’s a lot of learning that we can do from what Hamilton and particularly New Westminster have done. So let’s not cut this short. Let’s see what comes back from staff.

And we’ll take it from there. We’re not at the ultimate decision point yet. And I want to keep our options open because this has got to be an effective by-law. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other speakers? Okay. What we’re going to do is we’re going to do A and all the APNIC noteds.

Then we’re going to do B, then we’re going to do C. There’ll be three separate votes. A, all the APNIC noteds B and then C. So A and all the APNIC noteds we first.

We’re going to open that for voting. Councillor Truswell. I’m not kidding my screen, I’m voting yes. I noted, thank you, closing the vote.

Motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, same, Councillor Robin, go ahead. Thank you, we’re on B next. Thank you.

  • Yes. So I’d like to provide some comment on B. I believe that what we’ve received from the community with respect Acorn and other groups, with respect to why B is so important, is really key to this conversation. Part B offers, and right now it is direction to report back.

So to explore further, give us some report back on the possible temporary alternative accommodations. This piece to me is really key, because I think ultimately this is how we ensure people are not displaced, while these renovations are taking place. And if without that part of this bylaw, I agree that I think it will lack teeth, and therefore we will not be able to move forward in the way that we need to. Right now, what we’ve got in front of us in part A is great.

It gives us, it gives more, I’ll call it red tape, I don’t know if that’s the right way to say it, but I’ll, administrative work, I’ll call it sorry. It gives more administrative work to be able to go about doing these types of renovations, making sure that there is a professional report saying that a displacement is necessary to do said renovations. But the challenge here is where do these folks go? And how do they find a place that they can go to, that they can afford, or is comparable in terms of the cost, especially in this tight housing market that we have right now?

So for me, B is essential. And if we don’t even look at the options associated with B even further, I think we are putting in perils the work we’re doing on A and the good work staff have done, so that’s why I’ll be supporting B. Councillor Oppers, you haven’t spoken yet either, go ahead. Thank you, and I appreciate the Councillor’s comments going before me, and I don’t want to say the same things, but to me, this is B, this is what will give the teeth to out by law, and I am so thankful that I was able to attend the public participation meeting.

If you were there, or if you viewed it online, you could see and hear the importance of this clause for it to work. This is a report back, it’s all we’re doing, that’s all we’re asking, and I would really encourage each and every one of us to ask for this report back. We heard loud and clear from the community the importance of this clause, so I definitely will be supporting it. Okay, that’s all the speakers I have, we’re just on B right now, we’re going to open this for voting B.

Councillor Troso, thank you, closing the vote, motion carries, eight to seven. Okay, and now C, we’re going to open C for voting. Councillor Stevenson, two closing the vote, motion fails, five to 10. Councillor Ferra.

Mr. Mayor, that leaves us with the last item pulled by the deputy mayor, item 14, 4.1, Councillors H. McAllister and D Ferra, city operated long-term care facility, Deerness Home, and I’ll put that on the floor. Okay, so that’s on the floor by the chair, Councillor Pelosi, you got your hand up, go ahead.

Thank you, Your Worship, just looking to speak to this one as I was not able to do so at committee, just as an update as the past chair of the Deerness Home through the first full term of council, I will not be supporting this one as we’re looking at directing the next term of council. Okay, I’m going to ask people in the gallery, you’re very loud, we’re still continuing the meeting, so if you have some discussion, you can either do it quietly or you can take it into the hallway, so we can continue with the next item, thank you. Thank you, I recognize this is to create a budget report and options for the next term of council. I believe as they roll into the next NYB, the next term of council, there is time for the mayor and the council to make that decision for themselves, should they wish, as of this time, and it’s not in our budget or our strat plan.

As it was last term on council, just let all Councillors know that at AMO, we did have the opportunity to speak to the Minister of Long-Term Care, we did realizing Deerness is a lovely well-run city facility, and we do have an excess of property in that area, we did make a high level pitch for a campus of care, realizing we do have Londoners in need of housing that they could live in assisted living, then move on through the stages as they need, we have not got to welcome them yet to the city of London, realizing as well this is a cost to the city, I’ll just give you one moment, go back into my emails as Mr. Murray did send me some information as it pertains to the budget and we’re considering these things that Deerness Home is approximately $7.35 million for the 243 bed facility, so it’s approximately $30,000 per bed on average, and this includes the Adult Day Program and Homemakers Program, and it excludes the capital budget related to life cycle renewal of the facility and other corporate supports of the operation of the home. So it is not a revenue generator, which is fine, we are legislatively required to operate a long-term care home or have one in the city rather in support of the great work, but won’t be able to support this at the time as I do believe it’s direction that should come from the next term of council once elected. Okay, any of the speakers on this?

Deputy Mayor Lewis, start the list, Councilor McKeown. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m not gonna repeat everything that Councilor Plaza just said. I agree with her completely though.

We cannot bind the next council. We also do not have this in our strategic plan and there are things in our strategic plan. We are already not funding. I understand the good intent, but Deerness Home, and it’s fine that it is, but Deerness Home is heavily publicly subsidized by the municipal tax base.

It is not a revenue generator. It is actually a cost. And we’re talking about expanding Deerness Home. That comes with an expanded cost.

And as we’ve heard Councilor Plaza say, we’ve already made an offer to the province and they haven’t taken us up on it. It is not outside of the requirement to run one facility. It is not the responsibility or the jurisdiction of the municipality to provide long-term care. That is very clearly the responsibility of the province.

And I think that this is just an example of good intentions significantly overstepping our municipalities ability to deliver on things. Like I said, I understand where the good intent is coming from. Absolutely, but I can’t support this. I can’t support at a time when looking for budget reductions.

And I know we’re not asking for money now, but an expansion of a facility like Deerness Home. That’s not a few thousands, like hundreds of thousands of dollars. It’s not even a million. You’re talking about tens of millions, just in capital, if we’re going to do something that adds beds.

And then there’s the deficit created in the operating costs. So good intentions, but this is a hard no for me. Councilor McAllister. Thank you and through the chair.

Obviously a lot of thoughts on this. I was the one who put it forward. And I’ll be honest, one of the things I’ve heard throughout my whole life is we have very large portion of the population, the boomers, as we co-equally call them. And one of the things I’ve found fascinating through my life is that it’s a massive part of the population.

And the planning for that population should have been started a very long time ago. For me, I’m trying to play catch up with something like this. I’m trying to prepare for that aging population. And I’m not trying to put any of my colleagues on the spot, but you’re eventually going to get to that stage where you have to plan for your retirement.

I’m not putting any figures. I’ve tried to be respectful here. But I really do think as a society, we have done a disservice to our senior citizens. And one of the things I hear a lot of the time from my senior citizens is that they would like a public option to go to.

Deerness has a very good reputation for providing that quality care. It’s a public provider. And yes, we are operating at a bit of a loss, but it’s really the only option for a lot of people. A lot of our seniors cannot afford a private long-term care facility.

And I think we owe it to them to have this option. Yes, as a municipality, we are required to run one. This is the only one we do run. So I am trying to look for opportunities to lay the groundwork now.

Because as I said before, I think we have delayed it for too long. We talk about tying the next council. We do that all the time. I can think of so many infrastructure projects where the horizon is going to push it way past most of our future terms.

So I think that that is well within order. I think we owe it to our senior citizens to provide them this quality option. I think Deerness does a great job. I think we owe it to them to get the ball rolling now.

These are conversations we can have with the province in the lead up to not only the next provincial election, but we have to start these conversations now. Because as we heard from committee, and I want to thank Leslie Hancock from Deerness for coming, the timeline for these is extensive. Between four and seven years, I believe he said, just to kind of get these plans going. So we have to also take into account, yes, from our point of view, our term will be up.

But we have to start these long-term plans now. I mean, I wish I had a time machine to go back and do it years ago because our population is rapidly aging, and we are going to be in a position down the road where we don’t have enough spaces. The current wait list is approximately around 600. I think it’s 581 maybe.

Staff can confirm that if they have that at their hand in a moment. But it’s double the provincial standard currently. So I really do think that there’s an opportunity here. I know there is a consultant fee associated with this.

I mean, I think it was approximately 100,000. But I think that’s minimal. Especially when we consider a lot of the consultancy fees we put in place for other projects. I think this is something that will really serve a portion of the population that unfortunately has been neglected.

We went through a pandemic. The senior population took an absolute beating. And I really think we owe it to them to have a quality public facility funded. And if possible, expanded to plan for that future population growth we’re going to see.

So thank you. I have a closer post-out next. Sorry, go ahead. Well, thank you, Councilor McAllister.

You said very eloquently many of the things I wanted to say. Really important point. We really need to start planning for this. We should have been planning for it a long time ago.

One of the main points I want to make in support of this motion is people need a public option. And I wish we weren’t in such a situation where the private sector had so many questions being raised about it. Clearly, deerness is a leader in terms of providing quality service. And I think that we need to do is this Council, we need to do everything we can to push deerness along so they can take the next step.

Which really is going to be something that comes up. We boomers, I’m a boomer, I’m a middle boomer. I’m not an early boomer. I know I look a little bit like an early boomer today, but I’m a middle boomer.

We’re a pretty resilient group. And I know a lot of people would really like to stay in London and people don’t have the means to be able to say, well, I’m going to live another five, 10, 15 years and I’m going to be able to make those payments in a private house. People don’t have the ability to do that. People just don’t have the ability to do that.

So I want to make it really clear that I talk to a lot of seniors. I talk to a lot of seniors who are in apartment buildings or homes right now and they want to look forward to having a decent, high quality, non-predatory place where they can go to get that additional level of care when it’s time for them to do that. And deerness is just such a gem. We need to do everything we possibly can do.

And by the way, in terms of binding the next council, we do that all the time. We’re way into the 2030s in terms of what we’re doing with what’s a good example. The police training facility, not to start that discussion, but we do it all the time. And I think it’s important for us to look ahead.

Thank you very much. Okay, other speakers. Seeing none, then we’re going to open this for a vote in. Is there Trump’s home?

I vote yes. Noted, thank you. Close in the vote. Motion fails four to 11.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And that concludes, that concludes the ninth report of the Community and Protective Services Committee. I will be leaving the meeting.

All right, thanks. Go to Councilor Hopkins next for the Civic Works Committee. Yes, I’d like to present the 10th report of the Civic Works Committee. I have been asked to pull number eight.

And I have heard from— And number 11. And number 11. Yep, anything else? No, just, I would like to present the report where you proved a number of consulting engineer reports.

We received the mid-year green bin and collection program results. And we all agreed that staff did a great job and we saw the increases going up from 40% to 60% of the green bin. Other pilot programs are to be reported still. We also did the rapid transit shelters for consultant engineer as well as the artwork.

We did the school speed zone reduction on major streets and we extended our MOU with Upper Thames Conservation Authority on the West London Dyke for phase nine and 13. We received a number of advisory reports and a delegation from ESACA. And you can see the added of that delegation on the report, which is 5.2, the service London portal request. That is my report.

Okay, so you moved everything except those two items that were mentioned. So that’s everything except eight and 11. Any discussion on the items that are before us? Okay, seeing that, we’re gonna open that for voting.

Yeah, I did have discussion. Okay, yep, we’re good. We haven’t noticed, not open anymore. So go ahead.

Thank you. Just on the green bin update, appreciate all the information. I appreciate the uptake Londoners have had with the green bin. I think we’re off to a great start.

I know that I actually had to put a large zucchini in mine the other day ‘cause I let it get too big and it’s not even suitable for cooking with now. So I appreciate having mine too. My only question or comment is I’m hearing a lot of feedback from residents about our collectors tossing the bins and the potential damage, cracked lids, cracked hinges, those kinds of things. Obviously, when I hear that, I let them know if it does get broken, they should contact their counselor, including myself and we’ll get them a new one.

But I’m wondering if staff can tell me what we are doing with respect to training for our collection teams so that bins are being placed back on the boulevard rather than tossed off the edge of the truck. Thank you through your worship. Yes, we have heard those concerns as well. We’ve had a number of meetings with our unionized staff, with our supervisors and with our teams in general about that concern.

The best thing that I can ask too is that residents provide through service London a location where there’s been a specific issue so we can follow up specifically with the folks who are involved on that beat. Often when we say please don’t do this generically to everybody, most people assume it doesn’t apply to them. So it’s really helpful if we have locations we can follow up on, but we are continuing those conversations. It is important to us that we maintain these assets and if people have a broken bin, please contact us so we can arrange a replacement.

Thank you, worship and through you. I appreciate the staff response on that. Most often we end up having myself or leered on a forwarded service London rather than send them to the portals, but we’re happy to continue doing that. And I will just say I found myself for those listening and for those interests that I found since I started turning my handle out towards the curb.

So that’s very easy for them to pick up. I’m getting a very polite replacement where I picked it up. So maybe as individuals we can do something too to make their job a little easier facing the handle out. I don’t know if that actually makes their job easier, but I started doing that a couple of weeks ago and I’ve found my bin is basically right back where I put it, but empty.

So just wanted to share that and thank the teams for their hard work because I know it’s not the most glamorous job. I know it’s hot in this weather, it’s cold in January. It’s smelly right now. Then you got stuff frozen to the bottom when it’s winter, but I’m really encouraged to see the uptake.

And I know that there was some discussion in here about expanding to pet waste and those kind of things. Be interesting as a cat owner to see that ‘cause I’d love to use my cream bin for my litter too, but I know there’s complications around those kind of things, but I would just want to say it to staff. And particularly to Mr. Stanford and his team.

Great job so far. I know they’re working hard to respond. So I want to make sure that I acknowledge him and if I get it wrong, I apologize. I think it’s Jessica who have been doing a phenomenal job responding at least to the concerns that I’ve been getting from residents in ward two and getting those resolved really quickly.

So that encourages people to continue to participate. Can’t thank them enough for being so responsive and so friendly when they do respond to those concerns. Okay, any other comments in the general video report with the exception of the two items we pulled? Okay, we’re gonna open that for voting no then.

Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero, noting Councilor McAllister is absent. Councilor Hopkins. Yes, I’d like to put number eight on the floor, which is the recommendation to introduce a new bylaw to a school zone speed limit reductions on major streets and ending it to reduce it by 10 kilometers. That’s on the floor, I look to speakers.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. I just had this one pulled because I wish to vote against it. I supported the area speed limit reductions around school zones.

I supported the area speed limit reductions in residential neighborhoods. I can’t support speed limit reductions on major arterial roads, particularly at a time when quite honestly, and this is not on staff, I don’t see the enforcement that justifies it. We have all kinds of problems with transportation issues in our community. I don’t see spending $30,000 on signage as a valid expense at this point in time.

Compliance is voluntary on this. We know, because we asked, and we heard back about a year ago this time, that even if we were in a position to attain more area speed cameras, that the barrier is not since the processing center in Toronto that handles the volume of tickets that come in from all over the province. So it’s not like we can go out and add 20 speed cameras tomorrow to start deploying in these areas. And honestly, when I look at some of these areas, my concern around this was always elementary schools, not secondary schools, which a number of these areas are encompassing.

When young adults, teenagers are in high school, I expect them to be able to be a little bit more aware and alert of their surroundings that I expect of a grade three or a grade two student. So that’s the difference for me in terms of the school zones. I recognize that there may still be the odd elementary school that’s not covered on an arterial road. I think there are other ways, PXOs, crossing guards, those kinds of things, that are more effective for student safety than an area speed limit.

And quite honestly, I look at my own street, and I’m gonna really specifically reference Wavell here. And again, I’m not trying to pick on anybody in particular, but the sign pollution that comes with these area speed limits in community safety zones, I’m already in a 40 zone, and then I have to have another 40 zone signage to indicate the community safety zone starts. The sign pollution on Wavell alone is terrible, and I just can’t spend another $30,000 on signage that quite honestly, I don’t believe the average London driver on an arterial road is going to voluntarily comply with. Other speakers, Councillor Stevenson, go ahead.

And then, Councillor Trozau, and then Councillor Mayor Mirberg. Thank you, I won’t repeat some of what the deputy mayor said, but I do agree. And there is that thought that with arterial roads, we need to allow there to be the let the traffic move on those roads, it gets to be somewhere where the traffic moves along. And so I won’t be supporting this.

Okay, Councillor Trozau. Thank you. I’m not going to hold this meeting up to ask staff if they can comment on any statistics that they have about dangerous situations, accidents, near accidents, deaths that occur on highberry, ‘cause all you have to do is turn on the news and you see it. And for us to be saying, well, there’s just too many traffic signs up.

This doesn’t cut it for me. We need to be reducing, reducing. More than we’re doing here today in some instances, but we need to be reducing the speed around not just schools, but other places where people congregate. Now, I hope this passes because it’s a very reasonable across the board approach.

And it really just follows through on something that the city has been doing for quite a while. And that is reducing the speeds around schools. Now, if this doesn’t pass, I’m just going to be, I’m just going to walk out of here. Well, I’m already walking out of here shaking my head, but I’m going to be walking out of here shaking my head, even even even more.

I just don’t think it is unreasonable to ask, even on highberry. Maybe especially on highberry for people to slow down a little bit. And yes, I know there are going to be motorists that don’t comply, but that’s the case in the interior of neighborhoods too. And there are methods that we can be using to try to improve and increase the enforcement.

But I really, when I looked at that chart at the committee, I just looked at some of those intersections, especially the ones on highberry. And I just said to myself, we’ve got to lower these speed limits. There’s too much at stake. And whether the student is a teenager or younger than that, or whether there are too many street signs up, these are all beside the point.

We need to, is Vision Zero still a thing? Or have we given that up? ‘Cause it’s not convenient. ‘Cause it’s not convenient for drivers.

And the enforcement is difficult. We have to think about road safety more than we do. And this measure that came to the Civic Works Committee, while it doesn’t go as far as I think we need, in terms of some of these streets, it’s a great start. And I hope this council will support it.

Thank you very much. Councilor Van Meerbergen. Thank you, Mayor. I wanted to ask staff, with regard to arterial roads and schools, do not most of the crossings, if not all, have a crossing guard on arterial roads?

Go ahead. Thank you through your worship. I actually don’t have that information with me. I would suspect the elementary schools I know do for sure.

I’m not sure on secondary schools. I don’t believe so’s the case for high schools. Or perhaps lighted pedestrian crosswalk. Through your worship, that would vary based on the location and the type of crossing required.

In some cases, it might be pedestrian crosswalk. It could be a traffic signal. It would depend on the road and the location. Okay, thank you very much.

I mean, the unintended consequence of trying to slow down arterial traffic, is that you then encourage that traffic to find shortcuts. And the next thing you know, they’re cutting through neighborhoods. That’s far more dangerous than the free flow on a commissioners or a Southdale. Once they get into the nooks and crannies of the local streets, that’s where the kids are walking along or riding their bikes.

And so it strikes me that that is not a good outcome. So I will not be supporting this motion. Thank you, Mayor. Councilor Palosa.

Thank you, Your Worship. I will be supporting this one. I will recognize that last term of council. We did do to council’s point, vision zero.

We heard the reports of 30 kilometers per hour to those students who go to school on arterial roads, the major roads in this city. It’s not their fault. That’s where their school was built. And it’s more dangerous for them as a parent who had a school on Warren Cliff.

Actually, all the kids on school on Warren Cliff that we already know that major roads can divide communities. The children are collected from both sides to fill those schools. Some are bus, some get to walk. With vision zero, it’s looking at the speeds at which chance is gonna be a higher rate of fatalities of the children when they’re hit, as well as serious injury.

It would help with enforcement that the faster they’re going, the lower the speed limit, these are just to find those drivers and identify them. I realize that it’s our chilla roads and people are looking to go as fast as possible regardless of the speed limit that’s posted. But I will be supporting this one for those reasons and realizing that’s where the school is and it’s our job to do what we can to try and protect the students. And if that’s through increased enforcement and fines, if that’s where we go for those school hours to turn them on to school, then in my opinion, that’s where we’re at.

That’s a ramen. Thank you and through you. I’m not sure whether or not it’s possible to look at these on a more individualized level, but I wanted to speak to two that are in my ward and those are both on the backs of school yards facing onto Fanshawe Park Road. One, between Aldersbrook and Dalmagary is being proposed to go down to 40 kilometers an hour.

It’s the back of a high school, of which I’ve heard many concerns around the crosswalk timing at Aldersbrook, the crosswalk timing at Dalmagary, advanced turn signals of both of those intersections and lots of other additional concerns around needs for some traffic solutions. South carriage, Louise, Medway Park, Boulevard, Meadowlands, Redenview, Sunnydale, I could list about 50 streets that I have requests in from and not one for this. My concern about Fanshawe Park Road between Aldersbrook Gate and Dalmagary is that there is no ability to cross the road other than those two intersections by dropping the speed to 40 kilometers. You may actually entice more people to do just that.

And if that was from a planning perspective, I’ve talked to our staff about this, about the new subdivision or the new plan of subdivision that’s going into the corner of Dalmagary that could support another roadway entry into that neighborhood, which would help to take some of the congestion away from Dalmagary as well as from Aldersbrook Gate right now. So I would support that and then slowing that stretch. But without any other mitigations just slowing the stretch, I think actually creates more challenges. Lots of students enter from the back of St.

Andrey Bassett, but when they do, they’re typically crossing from the crosswalks. And those are where we need some interventions, not in between this, reducing it by 10 kilometers. And further up moving Fanshawe Park Road near Richmond to 50 kilometers from 60. Again, we need a longer crosswalk.

We need a crossing guard at Louise Boulevard and Fanshawe Park Road, reducing the speed limit. I personally believe without those mitigations doesn’t help to address the challenges and concerns in the area. Thank you. Sorry, Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, Your Worship, I haven’t spoken to this and I would like to do that. Yeah, thank you. This was supported at committee.

I know this has been a long wait for us to be allowed to reduce the school zones on major roads by the province. And I know that we have a number of other tools out there like speed cameras in our community zones and school zones that is going to continue. I would like to address one of my major issues I hear in my ward, which is cut through traffic. That already exists at changing the speed limit on some of our major roads in Ward 9 will not change that.

People already do that. This is really important. I have a number of schools. Commissioner’s Road, there’s one.

We had two fatalities the past year. It’s that simple, $30,000 we’re gonna say on signs. This is another opportunity for us to create safer neighborhoods. And it is not the be all and end all.

It’s going to solve our problems. But we know that we have this culture that exists that we wanna get from A to B as fast as possible. And we need to, that is undermining the safety of our neighborhoods. We need to do more.

I know that is the number one concern I hear in my ward. So not to support this would really be a huge concern from residents that constantly are saying, where are the signs, respect the limit signs? We have many, many opportunities to do. It’s not gonna solve all our problems.

Not to do it is for me a safety issue. Okay, that’s all the speakers I have on this. So we’re gonna open it for voting. This is on the committee’s recommendation.

Closing the vote, motion fails five to nine. Councillor Hopkins, your committee report, you got one more item. Yes, I’d like to put number 11, which is the service London portal request on the floor. There was an added 5.2, an added motion for a service London portal request directing staff to look at reporting on property standard violations and property naturalization violations.

It was to be directed for a report back. There is an amendment that is on the floor, which is to direct a set up, to request a button on the service London portal to report possible violations of the yard and lot maintenance by-law, including, but not limited to lawns, vegetative growth, natural gardens, graffiti, inoperative vehicles and refuse. So that is the amendment. Okay, so there’s no amendment because there’s a committee recommendation and we don’t get to change it at council.

Given the committee’s recommendation is to direct a report back and the new direction is to just do it. I would suggest just defeat the report back and then move the alternative motion just to do it. It’s just much cleaner. They’re actually different from each other.

One is to have doing work. The other is actually just doing it. So I think if you leave the committee recommendation here and gets defeated, I would look to Council Frank to move basically the just do it motion. And you can speak to the current committee recommendation if you’d like, go ahead.

Thank you, yes. I just wanted to encourage my colleagues to defeat it. I had a chance to have a discussion after civic works with staff. And they said they’re more than happy just to do it and don’t need to bring back a feasibility report because they can do it.

And so they’d actually just prefer to do it instead of writing a report about doing it. So I hope we defeat this and then I can put this other motion on it. Okay, hopefully it’s not gonna be a big long debate, but go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yeah, I’m gonna just echo everything that Council Frank just said.

I appreciate her actually bringing this idea forward. Listen, I can go in and code a new button to the back end of my website in about half an hour. Now granted, I don’t have to direct it through to like enforcement and make sure that it gets into CRM and everything, but it’s not that significant amount of work. So I wanna just do it.

Okay, if we’re not careful, staff could do it while we’re having this debate. So let’s, I think everybody knows, unless people’ve got a different direction, it’s defeat this motion that we could put a new one on. Unless there’s someone with an objection to that, I’m gonna say, looks like everybody, I see lots of nods. So, okay, so this is the committee’s recommendation, which Council Frank has asked you to defeat, and then there’ll be an alternative if that happens.

So we’ll open that for voting. Trustor votes, yes. I’m sorry, trust the votes, no. Thank you.

Close in the vote, motion fails, zero to 14. Okay, so no direction coming out of the committee, Councilor Frank, have an alternate. Thank you. I’d like to put the alternate on the floor that was circulated via email and it’s as well in eScribe.

We’re just gonna read that out for the public. It’s an alternate, so there’s a second or Deputy Mayor Lewis is willing to second. And I’ll just read it so the public knows what’s being done. Civic administration, the civic administration be directed to set up a request button on the service line of portal to report possible violations of the yard and lot maintenance by-law, including but not limited to lawns, vegetative growth, natural gardens, graffiti, inoperative vehicles and refuse.

Moved by Councilor Frank, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Any discussion? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Close in the vote, motion carries, 14 to zero.

That is my report. Thank you very much, Councilor. We are now on to added reports. So the 13th report of Council in closed session, I’m gonna say a very significant thank you to Councilor Ferrera who’s gonna read it, it’s not a short one.

So I’ll let you report out from our closed session. Thank you, Mayor. I’m happy to read out the 13th report of the Council in closed session, I’m also happy that it’s in 12 point font, no spacing, legal size paper, front and back. So your Council in closed session report, number one.

Offer to purchase city-owned lands, Safina Foods, Inc. part of Pine Street. That as a procedural matter pursuant to section 239, six of the Municipal Act 2001, the following recommendations be forwarded to Council in closed session for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded to Council for deliberation and to vote in public session. That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance supports on the advice of the Director of Realty Services with respect to the city-owned land located on Pine Street, legally described as part of Pine Street on register 433 being parts one and two on plan three three R dash two one eight four nine as outlined in the sketch.

Here two as Appendix A, the agreement of purchase of sale, the agreement, Appendix B, submitted by Safina Foods, Inc., the purchaser to purchase point eight acres of the subject property from the city at a purchase price of 120,000, be accepted subject to the conditions in terms below. Aye. The purchaser accepting the environmental condition of the lands on an Aziz basis, Aye, Aye. The purchaser accepting the land subject onto the retention of an easement in favor of London Hydro and the agreement being subject to the land being declared surplus by council, two offered to purchase city-owned surplus land part of Berkshire Park 510 Berkshire Drive.

That as a procedural matter pursuant to section 239 six of the Miss Will Act 2001, the following recommendation be forwarded to council in closed session for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded to council for deliberation and a vote in public session, brought on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance supports on the advice of the Director of Realtor Services with respect to the city-owned land located at Berkshire Drive, legally described as parts of block P, plan 932, London-West Minister, being parts of pin 084050053, containing an area of approximately 7,965 square feet is outlined on the location map as appendix A, the agreement of purchase of sale, the agreement, appendix B, submitted by Sifton properties limited, the purchaser to purchase the subject property from the city for the sum of 55,000 be accepted subject to the following conditions. I, purchaser acknowledges and agrees that the property of being purchased on an as is basis. I, I, the purchaser agreeing to pay their own legal fees. I, I, I, the purchaser agreeing to pay all expenses for preparing and positing a reference plan and purchaser to utilize park land credits in lieu of payment of purchase price.

Number three, partial property acquisition 1001 Fanshawe College Boulevard East London link project. That as a procedural matter pursuant to section 2396 of the Municipal Act 2001, the following recommendation be forwarded to council in closed session for the purpose of considering whether recommendation should be forwarded to council for the deliberation and a vote in public session. That on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports on the advice of Director Realtor Services with respect to partial acquisition of the property located at 1001 Fanshawe College Boulevard in the city of London for the described as part of South half lot seven concession to being part of pin 0 8 1 0 5 dash 0 3 9 0 l t more particularly described as parts 12 38 39 41 42 and 49 plan 33 r dash 2 1 8 1 0 containing an area of approximately 2 201.22 meters squared or 23 693.73 feet square feet as shown on the reference plan as appendix B for the purpose of future and road improvements to accommodate the East London link project. The following actions be taken a the offer submitted by the Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology the vendor to sell the subject property to the city for a nominal sum of $2 be accepted subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement as appendix C to the agreement including permanent easement in favor of London Hydro and a temporary easement agreement and the financing for this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report here to as appendix A for property acquisition 22 Wellington Road Wellington Gateway project that as a procedural matter pursuant to section 239 six of the municipal law of 2001 the following recommendations be forwarded to council in closed session for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded to council for deliberation and vote in public session that on the recommendation of the deputy seat manager finance reports with the concurrence of the director construction and infrastructure services on the advice of the director of realty services with respect to the property located at 22 Wellington Road for the described as part of law 18 registered plan 11 fourth division being west half except part 10 on plan 3 2 are 3 0 city of London County of Middlesex being all up in 0 8 3 5 7 - 0 0 5 3 LT containing an area of approximately 7459.38 square feet as shown on the location map as appendix B for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway project following actions be taken a the offer be submitted or the offer submitted by Jim Patterson enterprises limited the vendor to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of 705,000 be accepted subject to the terms and conditions of set out in the agreement as appendix C and B financing for this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report year two as appendix A number five property acquisition 129 hybrid Avenue north hybrid Avenue and Hamilton Road intersection project that as a procedural matter pursuant to section 239 six of the municipal act 2001 the following recommendations be forwarded to council in closed session for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded to council for deliberation and vote in public session that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports with the concurrence of the deputy city manager environment and infrastructure and on the advice of the director of realty services with respect to the acquisition of the property located at 129 hybrid Avenue north in the city of London further described as S 7 FT lot 147 and all of lot 148 plan 511 in the city of London county of Middlesex being all of pin 083 400243 containing an area of approximately 4,585.2 square feet or 0.105 acres as shown in the location map as appendix B for the purpose of future improvements to accommodate the hybrid Avenue and Hamilton Road intersection project the following actions be taken a the offer submitted by Justin David Kirk the vendor to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of 374,000 dollars be accepted subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement as appendix C and B financing for this report as the financing for this acquisition be proved a set out in the source of financing report as year two as appendix A number six property acquisition 1535 Dundas Street open space and natural heritage that as a procedural matter pursuant to section 239 six of the municipal act 2001 the following recommendations be forwarded to council in closed session for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded to council for deliberation in a vote in public session that on the recommendation of deputy city manager finance supports with the concurrence of the deputy city manager environment and infrastructure and the director parks at four street on the advice of the director of realty services with respect to the property located at 1535 Dundas Street further described as part law seven and eight plan 69 part of hill street plan 69 closed by eight five one seven l y designated as part two plan three three r dash seven nine four seven in the city of London county middle sex with an area of approximately 4.28 acres as shown on the location map as appendix B for the purpose of a park acquisition to protect natural heritage features the following actions be taken A the offer submitted by drill or construction limited the vendor to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of six hundred and thirty thousand dollars be accepted subject to the terms and conditions to set out in the agreement and as appendix C and B the financing for this acquisition be approved a set out in the source of financing report year two as appendix A number seven settlement agreement one one four four Dundas Street east London link project that on a procedural matter pursuant to section 239 six of the municipal act 2001 the following recommendations before to to council in closed session for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded to council for deliberation and a vote in public session that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports on the advice of the director of realty services with respect to the property located at one one four four Dundas Street further described as part block D registered plan four nine four in the city of London county of Middlesex designated as part one plan e r dash one five four five four four five being part of 10 0 8 2 8 9 dash 0 0 5 7 as shown on the location map as appendix B for the purposes of future road improvements to accommodate the east London link project the following actions be taken hey settlement agreement as to the compensation and possession from fee NAS holding ink to settle the outstanding expropriation compensation to the property owner for the total sum of two hundred and fifteen thousand eight hundred dollars be accepted subject to the terms and conditions that set out in the agreement and appendix C and B the financing for this acquisition be approved a set out in the source of financing report here to as appendix A number eight awarding of the 2024 Queen Elizabeth scholarships that on that as a procedural matter pursuant to section 239 two of the municipal act 2001 as amended following recommendation be forwarded to the council in close session for the purpose of considering whether the recommendation should be forwarded to city council for deliberation in a vote in public session that on the recommendation of the city clerk and the recognition achieving the highest scholastic achievement in their graduating year following students be awarded the 2024 Queen Elizabeth scholarship in the amount shown shoe ying hoe from London central secondary school with an average of 99 percent two thousand dollars and Adrian star zinc ski from st.

Andre percent Catholic secondary school with the average of 99 percent two thousand dollars that progress was made with respect to items four point eight four point nine four ten and four twelve as noted on the public agenda six point eight slash twelve slash corporate services committee and six point one slash nine slash community protective services committee and six point two slash nine slash community protective services committee and six point one slash thirteen slash council that’s the thirteenth report with the council in close session great job can you do less than five minutes next time i’m just kidding i’m just kidding um we’re gonna so you get to stand because you’re presenting the report counselor after all that you get the bonus standing um we’re going to do this in four votes um and i’m going to look to counselors who may want to declare some interests uh the first vote will be actually the counselors can declare their interests now and then i’ll divide the votes so counselor ramen thank you i’ll be declaring a conflict on what i believe is item six point three in the csc report um as Fanshawe college is my employer counselor caddy yes uh you wish them all have a conflict as well yeah six point one six point one i believe thank you okay and uh that’s it so how we’re going to do this is we’re going to present this in um four separate votes first vote will be um the item that counselor caddy declared on second vote will be the item that counselor ramen declared on the third vote will be everything else with the exception of the Wellington gateway or east linked items and then the final vote will be all of the Wellington gateway or east linked items in case colleagues want to vote differently on that that’s how i’m going to divide them if that’s okay counselor ram marebergen right okay well thank you for that uh mare i just want to clarify so i’d like to vote against six point three six point four and six point seven so would i wait till the end on that last vote so you vote against the second vote we have because that’s one that’s related to a conflict so it’ll be separated out and six point four and six point seven will be together at the end i’ll remind you as we go through the votes how about that okay thanks okay so the first vote that we’re going to do i’m going to have counselor for who presented the report move it it’s going to be six point one from csc uh which is the one that counselor caddy declared an interest on okay you you get to stay but you you vote abstain uh seconder in counselor layman okay we’re gonna any discussion okay we’ll open that for voting frozen the vote motion carries 12 to 0 with one recuse okay and next is uh vote two will be six point three of csc which is the one counselor ramen declared on and counselor marebergen you wanted this separate as well So I’ll look to Councillor Ferra to move and a seconder on this would be Councillor Cuddy. Any discussion? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 11 to 1 with 1 recuse. Third vote contains everything that was not a conflict and didn’t seem like anybody wanted to vote separate on. So 6.2, 6.5, 6.6 and 6.0. So 6.2, 6.5, 6.6 of CSC and 6.3, which is the scholarships of CPSC.

Moved by Councillor Ferra, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Any discussion on that? Aside from a huge congratulations to the scholarship winners, which we will of course do in a presentation formally later, then check. Okay, we’ll open that for voting.

Close in the vote. Motion carries 13 to 0. And the final one is two items related to the Wellington Gateway and East London Link, 6.4 and 6.7 of CSC. Moved by Councillor Ferra, seconded by Councillor Cuddy.

Any discussion? We’ll open that for voting. Close in the vote. Motion carries 11 to 2.

Say Councillor Ferra. Thank you very much for doing that. I really appreciate it. Deferred matters.

I have nine inquiries. Any inquiries? Councillor Palosa. Thank you.

Did not give staff a heads up on this, so not verbally, but it came through email. Looking through you to staff just for a high-level overview with the recent flooding events that the city seen. Just I know the city has a basement flooding program if staff could just comment on if they still have concerns about catch basins, how to lodge those concerns, or if they want to learn about the basement flooding program where they could find that information. I know the comms team was going to work on something, but just in advance of that.

And apologies again. Thank you. Your worship. We are, let’s not do that, through your worship.

We are in a position where we’re catching up well from the flooding last week. We’ve done some good work with most of our park spaces being cleaned up. We do some additional work to bring in material around and have replaced structures with respect to the basement flooding grants program. We are always open for applications, and usually those do come in somewhat later after people receive quotes from a potential contractor to do that work.

The program does not apply to damages incurred, but is about future flood proofing. So we do encourage people to visit our website, see if that program is appropriate for them, get their quotes from their contractor, and apply so that they could be reimbursed for making their homes more robust for future flooding. Certainly, it was an eventful cycle of rain over the course of about a week. We had a record breaking storm on the heels of a record breaking rainfall on the heels of another potentially record breaking rainfall.

And we know it’s been a challenge for a lot of engineers. Okay. Thank you. Any other inquiries?

Seeing none, there’s no emergent motions. So we’re on to bylaws. So thank you for everybody who forwarded the bylaws. You might want to vote on separately.

I’m going to tell you how I currently have this divided. The first set of bylaws we’re going to vote on is what I’m pretty sure is all the things that everybody seems to be agreed on, except, yeah, so everything, everything, everything except what I’m going to mention. We’re going to separate out bill 256 and bill 263, which are related to Colonel and Talbot Pack Road, the Councillor Cudi declared on, and the thing that came out of in-camera, Safina Foods, we’ll do those together though. That’ll be, I’ll tell you when that vote happens, that’ll be the second set of votes we do.

The third set of votes we do will address the Fanshawe College item for Councillor ramen. The fourth set of votes we do will be the added bills related to the Wellington Gateway and the East London Link. The first set of votes will do is everything else. So that means Councillor Cudi’s will be the second set.

Councillor ramen’s the opportunity will be the third set. The East London Link things will be the fourth set, but everything else will be the first set. And there’s no bill 247 anymore because that was related to the item that was defeated from the Civic Works Committee. Makes sense to everybody.

Is that okay? All right. So then the first set will be everything with the exception of the exclusions that I mentioned. I need a mover and a seconder for first reading.

Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. There’s no debate on first reading, so we’ll open that for voting. Wasn’t the vote motion carries 13 to 0? Mover and seconder for second reading.

Moved by Councillor Cudi, seconded by Councillor Ferra. Any debate on second reading? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Wasn’t the vote motion carries 13 to 0?

Third reading. Moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. We’ll open third reading for voting. Wasn’t the vote motion carries 13 to 0?

All right. Next set of bylaws is bill 256 and bill 263. Two items that Councillor Cudi declared on. I’ll look for mover and a seconder of those two items.

Councillor Ferra, seconded by Councillor Layman, will open first reading for voting. Wasn’t the vote motion carries 12 to 0 with one recuse? Okay. I need a mover and a seconder for second reading.

Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Any discussion on second reading? Seeing none, we’ll open that. Councillor Ploza, closing the vote.

Motion carries 12 to 0 with one recuse. Third reading. Moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Stevenson. We’ll open third reading for voting.

Wasn’t the vote motion carries 12 to 0 with one recuse? The next set of votes will be related to the Fanshawe College East London link item that came out of confidential session. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder of first reading. This is bill 265.

Moved by Councillor Cudi, seconded by Councillor Per beau. We’ll open first reading for voting. Wasn’t the vote motion carries 11 to 1 with one recuse? Second reading of the same bill.

Moved by Councillor Ferra, seconded by Councillor Layman. I need to debate on second reading. Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. And carries 11 to 1 with one recuse.

And third and final reading. Moved by seconded by Councillor Ploza. We’ll open third reading for voting. Opposed in the vote.

Motion carries 11 to 1 with one recuse. Okay. And now added bills 266 and 269 which are related to the Wellington Gateway and the East London link property acquisitions. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder of Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Layman.

We’ll open first reading for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 11 to 2. Second reading for these items.

Moved by Councillor ramen. Seconded by Councillor Cudi. I need to debate on second reading. Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 11 to 2. Third and final reading of the set of bills. Councillor Pribble moved.

Seconded by Councillor Paloza. We’ll open third and final reading for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 11 to 2.

Thank you, colleagues, for submitting your by-law items at a time. That’s one of those smoother, I think, and a little faster. And with that, we only have adjournment left. So Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Cudi.

All those in favor of adjournment. That motion carries. We’re adjourned. Thank you.