Open Council

11th Meeting of the Civic Works Committee

Open Council

11th Meeting of the Civic Works Committee

August 13, 2024, at 9:30 AM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Items 2.3 to 2.6 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

2.3   Oxford Street West Improvements - Environmental Assessment Study, Notice of Completion

2024-08-13 - Staff Report - (2.3) Oxford Street West Improvements

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated August 13, 2024, related to Oxford Street West Improvements Environmental Assessment Study Notice of Completion:

a)    the Environmental Study Report for the Oxford Street West Improvements BE ACCEPTED;

b)    a Notice of Study Completion for the Project BE FILED with the Municipal Clerk; and,

c)    the Environmental Study Report BE PLACED on the public record for a 30-day review period. (2024-T06)

Motion Passed

2.4   Traffic Management Initiatives

2024-08-13 - Staff Report - (2.4) Traffic Management Initiatives

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report dated August 13, 2024, with respect to Traffic Management Initiatives BE RECEIVED. (2024-T08)

Motion Passed

2.5   Stoney Creek Valley Pathway Connection to the Thames Valley Parkway - Appointment of Consulting Engineer

2024-08-13 - Staff Report (2.5) - Stoney Creek Valley Pathway Connection to the Thames Valley Parkway - Full

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated August 13, 2024, related to the Stoney Creek Valley Pathway Connection to the Thames Valley Parkway:

a)    Dillon Consulting Limited BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the construction contract administration phase in the amount of $120,879.00 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

d)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-E02)

Motion Passed

2.6   Contract Award - Tender No. RFT-2024-120 East London Link and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 3B - Highbury Avenue North CPKC Bridge

2024-08-13 - Staff Report (2.6) - Contract Award Tender No. RFT-2024-120

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated August 13, 2024, related to the Contract Award for Tender No. RFT-2024-120 East London Link and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 3B for the Highbury Avenue North CPKC Bridge:

a)    the bid submitted by GIP Construction and Materials Limited, at its tendered price of $24,961,879.38 (excluding HST), for the East London Link and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 3B Highbury Avenue North CPKC Bridge project, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by GIP Construction and Materials Limited was the lowest of five (5) bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)    Dillon Consulting Limited BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the construction inspection and contract administration for the said project in accordance with the estimate, at an upset amount of $2,684,689.98 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

e)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this project as it relates to interaction with CPKC Railway;

f)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to approve Memorandums of Understanding between The Corporation of the City of London and public utilities and private service owners in relation to the cost-sharing of servicing works contained within the East London Link and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 3B Highbury Avenue North CPKC Bridge project contract;

g)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done, relating to this project (Tender RFT-2024-120); and,

h)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-L04)

Motion Passed

2.2   Johnson-Gough Municipal Drain Extension - Meeting to Consider

2024-08-13 - Staff Report (2.2) - Johnson-Gough Municipal Drain Extension - Full

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That on the recommendation of Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated August 13, 2024, related to the Johnson-Gough Municipal Drain Extension:

a)    the drainage report, as appended to the above-noted staff report, prepared by Spriet Associates London Ltd, Consulting Engineers for the construction of the Johnson-Gough Municipal Drain (2024) BE ADOPTED; it being noted the notice of the public meeting was provided in accordance with the provisions of section 41 of the Drainage Act; and,

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED and BE GIVEN two readings at the August 27, 2024 Council Meeting to provide for Drainage Works in the City of London (Construction of the Johnson-Gough Municipal Drain); it being noted that the third reading of the by-law for enactment would occur at the Council meeting after holding of the Court of Revision in connection with the project;

it being noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with this matter. (2024-E09)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Trosow

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

2.1   8th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee

2024-07-17 ITCAC Report

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 8th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee from the meeting held on July 17, 2024:

a)    the following actions be taken with respect to the Environment and Transit Sub-Committee item, as appended to the Agenda:

i)    the London Transit Commission (LTC) BE REQUESTED to run a driver’s awareness campaign/education program related to the issue of lane jumping around city buses and to have an ongoing campaign on the LTC website; and,

ii)    the London Police Services and the London Transit Commission BE REQUESTED to work together on enforcement to allow buses to merge back into traffic after a stop; and,

b)    clauses 1.1, 3.1, 3.2 and 4.2 to 4.4 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Councillor S. Franke - Planned Green Municipal Fund Project Applications in the Next 12-24 Months Request

2024-08-13 - Submission (4.1) Planned Green Municipal Find Project Applications in the Next 12-24 Months Requests

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

The communication dated July 11, 2024, from Councillor S. Franke, with respect to a request for a report back to a future meeting of the Civic Works Committee regarding the Planned Green Municipal Fund Project Applications in the next 12-24 months BE REFERRED to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to be brought forward with the future 2024 Climate Emergency Action Plan Update; it being noted that the communication, dated August 8, 2024, from C. Butler, with respect to this matter, was received. (2024-F11A)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

4.2   Councillor H. McAlister - Update to the Hamilton Road Streetscape Master Plan

2024-08-13 - Submission (4.2) Motion to Civic Works on Hamilton Road MMP

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication dated August 1, 2024, from Councillor H. McAlister, related to an Update to the Hamilton Road Streetscape Master Plan:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to include, as part of the Mobility Master Plan, identification of an update to the Hamilton Road Streetscape Master Plan from Adelaide St to Highbury Ave, which could include a three-lane reconfigured road layout with protected bike lanes, and accessible sidewalks; it being noted that any large-scale redesign recommendations would be considered through the next Multi-Year Budget cycle for 2028-2031; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a budget amendment for the Hamilton Road Streetscape Master Plan for consideration in the earliest possible update after completion of the Mobility Master Plan; it being noted that the communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from C. Luistro, Hamilton Road BIA and V. Da Silva, with respect to this matter, were received. (2024-T08)

Motion Passed

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to amend the motion to remove “including, but not limited to” from part a) of the main motion and insert “which could include” in its place.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to approve the motion, as amended.

Motion Passed (5 to 1)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 10:30 AM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (1 hour, 18 minutes)

[18:58] Good morning, everyone. Please check the city website for additional meeting detail information. Meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city website. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, the Haudenosaunee, the Lupinee Walk, and the Adewandrin. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, First Nations, Maytees, and Inuit today.

[19:35] As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work, live, and live in this territory. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact cwc@london.ca, or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. Moving on to the agenda. Any disclosures of pecuniary interest?

[20:17] I see none. Moving on to consent items, I will be pulling 2.1 and 2.2, which will go to the scheduled items. 2.2 will be a public participation meeting. And with that, we have consent items 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6, looking for a motion. Councillor Frank, and welcome, Mr. Mayor.

[20:52] We’ll be seconding. And with that, any questions from committee members on any of these items? That is 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6. Councillor Pervall. Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff, regarding the 2.3, the Environmental Assessment Study. It states, based on the Council approval, 30-day review period, what would be the timeline afterwards after this initial period?

[21:31] Thank you. Mr. McQuay. Thank you through the chair. The 30-day review period is a stipulated part of the environmental assessment process. It’s the final public consultation part of that process. So to receive in comments during the 30-day review period, the team will finalize and then mark on the design phase. And then in the design phase, there will be additional public consultation opportunities.

[22:09] Even Councillor, thank you in the follow-up. According to the projections, there will be $18.7 million currently. That’s what it states there. So if this goes ahead, when this investment would be made, and when it would be made, has it been already projected, or would it be in this multi-year budget or the future? Thank you. Through the chair, the cost of those two phases of the project are in the budget. It’s in the growth budget as its component of development charge funding.

[22:49] So the plan currently is to implement the first phase in 2026 and the funds are available for that. So just to make sure it is included in this multi-year budget because it’s 2026 and the entire amount is budgeted in it for the phases because I understand the 18.7 is, should be for all phases if approved, correct? Mr. McCrae, looking at making sure we have enough money in our budget for all of the projects, Councillor, I just want to give clarification.

[23:31] Not all the projects. This one project, this all phases. All phases. Yeah, through the chair, the total of both phases is 29.8 million. The phase that is within the current MIB, you are correct, it is currently estimated at 18.7. That dollar value will be refined during the design phase but our current information that is sufficient funds in the budget to deliver the project.

[24:07] Councillor? Thank you. No more questions from this point. Any other questions from committee members on any of the consent items? Councillor Pribble. Thank you. I have a question regarding the 2.5, which is a project in my ward, which I’m very excited about. And I just wanted to ask a question because in this project, in the appendix A, it’s there’s a financial projection. And this year, we are gonna be finishing the part from Dune to Adelaide.

[24:44] And so do I understand, right, that this one is really only looking into the, from the Adelaide going south past the bridge and connecting to TVP. And if this amount is including both Dune to Adelaide and Adelaide to the bridge, or if this is just really the feature one from Adelaide when the mayor to the bridge. Thank you. Thank you.

[25:17] Thank you. Through the chair, so the current report relates to the entire project limits for providing consulting services during construction. Thank you to follow up. So the 1.249 million would be including project for this year and also for the entire project. I just want to make sure and it is, of course, it’s budgeted as it shows in the source of funding. So I just want to make sure it’s for entire project.

[25:50] Thank you. Through the chair. So the, yes, the report speaks specifically to the consultant work for providing construction oversight. And that is for the entire project, which will include work this year and into next year as well. Councillor. Thank you, Mr. Chair, last question, follow up. The 1.249, I do understand that this one is talking about the engineering the project.

[26:28] I do understand which is 54,000. But the 1.249 million, the entire project, including the engineering, including the work, should be within this amount, correct? Through the chair, that is correct. Thank you very much, no more questions. Thank you. Any other questions, comments from committee on the consent items? I would like to make a quick comment from the chair regarding the 2.3, which is the Oxford Street, West improvements on the master EA study.

[27:11] This is in my ward. Very pleased to see this coming forward. And even more pleased to know that it’s going to be starting in 2026. And I really appreciate the work and time that went into this. We had a number of public engagement sessions throughout the past couple of years. And I’m really pleased to see the bridge not having to be redoneed. We can accommodate a number of improvements while maintaining the bridge. I remember when this was put in a number of years ago, and it was quite a conversation.

[27:48] I cannot imagine not having this extension to the West End, but it was considered quite a project building this bridge. And I’m really pleased at that time we built it for expanding it right now. So I just wanted to make these comments. Thank you to staff. I know there’s still more work to be done. I know there will be notices sent out as we go through preparing for the construction. And as we all know, construction projects always do take a toll on how we move.

[28:24] And I would really encourage staff to keep those conversations going with the notices and letting the community know that we are just about going forward with these improvements. So with that, I think we should proceed to vote. Councillor Peruzzan, voting yes.

[29:10] Closing the vote, the motion carries, six to zero. Moving on to schedule the items, we have 2.1, which is the eighth report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee. We, just one moment, sorry, before we get to 2.1, we should do 2.2, which is the public participation meeting for Johnson-Gal Municipal Drain Extension. I would like to open up the public participation meeting and looking for a mover and a seconder, Councillor for error.

[29:50] Seconded by Councillor Trissell. Closing the vote, the motion carries, six to zero.

[30:29] And I’d like to go to the gallery if there’s anyone here that would like to speak to this item. You could come forward to the mics and you’re able, is there anyone here that would like to speak to this item? I see none. You are able to make comments up to five minutes. See none, so with that, I’d like to close the public participation meeting, Councillor Frank.

[31:14] Thank you, quick question. I’m just wondering, was this circulated to the public as a public participation meeting? ‘Cause I don’t see it in the report. So I’m just curious if this was processed in the same way as our usual PPMs. I’d like to go to staff. Thank you through the chair. So this process is underneath the Municipal Drainage Act. So it’s a little bit different. So this work is done at the request and the cost of the property owners that the drain services. So the Drainage Act requires us only to notify those properties owners. So they were given notice and a time period that they could provide comments within.

[31:50] We did not receive any generally this work because it is initiated by property owners usually goes on without comments. So it’s not quite the same as our typical PPM requirements. With that, I am looking for a motion to close the public participation meeting. Councillor Pribble, seconded by Councillor Frank, proceed to vote. Wasn’t the vote motion carries six to zero?

[32:37] With that, I’d like to start off with if there’s a motion to adopt and introduce the authorization and the construction of the drain project. It be noted that there will be a third reading at a later date with the by-law. We just do the two readings. Councillor Frank and Mayor Morgan as seconder. Any questions?

[33:13] Councillor Pribble. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff. I got a question on this one because in these recommendations, we are approving the by-law and there are no financials stated there. Then the by-law states that actually financials, we are approving. Then there’s a specific consultant financials. Then we have the construction, a public tender for these works will be issued and construction undertaken.

[33:50] I just want to have the understanding of this one. So we are approving the by-law, the motion, which doesn’t include the financials by the by-law. So this one is kind of different than the one’s previous. So if you could explain that one to me, thank you. Thank you, through the chairs. So the reason there are financials, but no source of financing, for example, is this is not actually paid by the municipality. So what this work does is it allows us to tender the work and there is an assessment done to each of the property owners for their share of the cost.

[34:22] And that’s what the by-law sets out, so. So for the portion of the city, because it’s not by 800% by those landowners, there is a share of the city as well. It is 100%. Okay, so I did get the note. So that answers my question. Thank you very much. Any other questions from committee members? I see none, we can proceed to vote.

[35:06] Closing the vote, the motion carries, six to zero. Our next scheduled item is 2.1, which is our next item is 2.1, which is the eighth report with the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee. I would like to maybe ask our vice chair if he could take over as I’d like to make a few comments. Yes, thank you very much.

[35:42] I will do that and recognize Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, vice chair. So I would like to make a few comments here and looking forward to a conversation here at committee regarding the eighth report in particular, as it relates to 4.4, which is the Road Safety Subcommittee. We are requesting, but the advisory group is requesting to direct the certificate and then two, and the London Transit Commission to prepare a business case on the priority basis.

[36:18] Understand that that is already going forward, but I would like to make an amendment to this to request that we just received this portion. I do feel that when it comes to advisory groups giving direction in council supporting that on to the administration, I think we have to be a little bit careful. So I do have an amendment to that, and well, I’d like to put that motion on the floor.

[37:00] Senator Second, any discussion for Provost? I certainly support this, and I just want to add that both 4.1 and 4.4, the ITCAC, I attended this meeting and send this information to LTC, LTC responded to both points. So actually, they have been already addressed, and if there is any additional follow-up from ATCAC, they are more than welcome, they are more than welcome to come back to us.

[37:43] Thank you. Any other questions, Mayor Morgan? Yes, I just had a comment to this, so I appreciate Councilor Hopkins’ direction on this. It is a redundant request from an advisory committee and unnecessary, as I’m sure everybody knows, as soon as, first off, FCM, as well as a number of municipalities, aggressively lobbied for permanent transit fund, it’s something that’s been in the works for some time, it’s something that the government has committed to, and of course, then we lobbied for them to open the intake and process the funds faster, the municipalities been in discussions directly with the Transit Commission about ensuring that we are as prepared as we possibly can to be very aggressive in our application quickly into the fund because we know these funds are often oversubscribed.

[38:30] So although I appreciate the suggestion from the advisory committee, there is a level of trust of the municipal government here that I think needs to be taken, that when there are significant funding programs that are going to be critical to the municipality that we are on that from both a staff and LTC and a government relations perspective. So I support the way that Councillor Hopkins is going, I’m not sure this is necessary for an advisory committee to give a suggestion on, I think, receiving this part, and then just accepting the rest of the report is appropriate. If there are no other, oh, Councillor Hopkins, did you want to speak again, anybody else?

[39:09] I will turn the chair back to Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, Vice Chair Tresault, and with that, there is a motion we can proceed to vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries, six to zero. With that, we move on to items for direction 4.1, which is Councillor Frank, planned Green Municipal Fund project applications in the next 12 to 24 months request.

[39:56] There is a motion looking to Councillor Frank. Yes, thank you. Would you like me to move the motion with the updated language and then speak to it? I think with the updated language, yes. Excellent, so I didn’t see an eScribe, so I’m not sure if it’s just maybe hopping in now, but I’ll read it out. The communication data July 11th, 2024 from Councillor Frank with respect to request to report back a future meeting of Civic Works Committee regarding the planned Green Municipal Fund project applications in the next 12 to 24 months be referred to as PBC to be brought forward with a future 2024 climb emergency action plan update, it being noted communication from C. Butler was received.

[40:38] So simply shifting, since we get the climb emergency action plan updates at SPPC, shifting it to that committee and aligning it with the regular reports as opposed to a separate report. Thank you for that. Any questions from committee members? Oh, I am looking for a seconder in Mayor Morgan, thank you. Any questions, comments? No, I— - Please speak to it. You can speak to it, yes. Before you do, I would just like to ask good staff any concerns with the amended motion.

[41:15] I thank you, Madam Chair. No concerns with the amended motion. We will do our best to align whatever projects we are looking to seek funding through these funds and provide that information with our report late January or early February of next year. Councillor Feng. Thank you, yes, and I just wanted to briefly explain the rationale behind this. As we know, there are many projects in the climb emergency action plan, I think over 200 different actions, very ambitious and just getting a better understanding from both council and community’s perspective of what the major projects will be that we’re looking at and understanding that the Green Municipal Fund has a lot of different funding opportunities.

[41:50] They’ve revamped their funding structure, so that might have either made more funding available or made some less attractive, but having a clear understanding of what those projects will be and then being able to understand in the next 12 to 24 months before the end of our term, what projects are being prioritized by staff. So simply seeking that information and hoping that it aligns with some of the prioritization work that staff are doing for the plan. Thank you, Councillor Frank, Mayor Morgan. Yes, so I support the direction.

[42:24] I’ll just also note that as now as the chair of the big city mayors federally, I also sit on the FCM executive, which is the decision-making body for Green Municipal Fund projects. So I’ll be required to declare a conflict on any projects that London submits at that level, but I’m fully able to participate in our discussions and forwarding projects here. I think this is an astute alignment of different reporting structures and ensuring that as there is money out there to go after that we go after it aggressively. Thank you, Mayor Morgan, for those comments.

[42:57] And with that, we can proceed to vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries, six to zero. Moving on to our second item for direction, 4.2, which is from Councillor McAllister, as an update to the Hamilton Road streetscape master plan. There is a motion in front of us.

[43:30] There is added communication, just to make the committee members aware. I’m looking for a motion to start the conversation, Councillor Tresault and looking for a seconder. Councillor Frank, and with that, I see Councillor McAllister here. Welcome to Civic Works Committee. If you could speak to your motion.

[44:08] Yes, and thank you through the chair. Appreciate being a visitor at this committee. I was previously on this committee and I know do a lot of interesting work. So thanks for letting me be here today. So really my intention behind this, this is an issue I hear daily, weekly, monthly traffic safety concerns on Hamilton Road. We actually held a dedicated town hall to this topic last year. It is something I hear frequently. I know there’s a lot of community concerns, not just from people who live in that immediate area, but people who utilize that as an East West corridor.

[44:48] There’s a lot of folks who take Hamilton, Horton, Spring Bank. So in terms of getting right across the length of the city, it’s a road that’s well utilized. And I hear a lot of different opinions on this. And really, this is coming out of conversations with staff. And I want to say thank you, first of all, to Mr. McCrae and your team. In terms of working with me to address some of those concerns, when we had the town hall, we were able to get some really good feedback in terms of the lines being improved, the lighting above standard illumination to make it brighter in the area.

[45:26] The red light camera, these are all great additions. But in the course of those conversations, those are things that we could do to work within the existing infrastructure that we have. And really, I see this as looking at the bigger picture in terms of a redesign potentially of the road. And I know I’ve had a lot of discussions in the last few days in terms of people’s opinions, in terms of a three lane. But as I mentioned in the motion, this is including but not limited to. Because really, I want to give staff the opportunity to look at a potential redesign, what that could entail.

[46:04] It could be larger, it could be smaller, I don’t know. And really, this comes down to me needing that information. And us as a council, being able to look into this to see what could be done. It’s a road that we’ve worked with for many years. Some of these plans date back in the last century in terms of how it was aligned. I think it’s a road that needs more attention. We have put in work in the last little while to improve it. But again, that’s how it exists currently. We haven’t necessarily looked at what could be done to improve the safety for everyone.

[46:43] Because this is, again, it’s not just drivers. I hear this from pedestrians, from cyclists. There are a lot of concerns in terms of the traffic safety for all involved. And really, I think this is important to have this conversation. First at committee and then council. I want to hear what my colleagues have to say. But I am expressing a concern that I hear all the time from my constituents and from Londoners who use this road. As I said, it is a main east-west corridor. I do believe it needs more attention. And I think we should seriously contemplate updating this streetscape plan.

[47:19] Because as staff had indicated, this is the next step in terms of us looking at that bigger picture and potentially doing redesign on that road. So I’m going to leave my comments there for now. I’m kind of more broadly expressed what I hear. I’m happy to listen to what my colleagues have to say and respond to any questions. And I’m sure staff can as well. Thank you. Thank you very much for those comments. Looking to committee members for comments on the motion. Mayor Morrigan. Thank you.

[47:52] Let me start off by saying, having been a word counselor, I very much appreciate the work that Councilor McAllister has done to advocate for his award on this and a number of other projects. And I also appreciate that he had a public meeting. And staff worked with him on a number of suggested improvements for safety along the corridor and in the area. I will, though, with respect, express a concern with the Councilor’s motion. And it has to do with a couple of parts. One is the master mobility plan. And although I appreciate what the Councilor just said, what the motion says is that staff be directed to include as part of the master mobility plan, including but not limited to.

[48:35] So including three lane configuration, protected bike lane, successful sidewalks. And it is not my desire to get ahead of the master mobility plan process to allow that work to continue from a staff and technical basis to provide suggestions through the master mobility plan, which work for not just this part of the city, but all parts of the city for all modes of transportation. And so I’m resistant myself and will be voting against this part of the motion to presuppose or include in the master mobility plan components that have not been assessed.

[49:10] The other piece, too, is to, when we complete the master mobility plan, and we talked about the Canada Public Transit Fund, as well as our own DCs and capital plan projects that we have, there’s gonna be many things that we’re probably, well, there’s gonna be many things that we will need to fund from the master mobility plan and find a way to do that. And so I’m also hesitant to provide the direction to suggest things in the multi-year budget cycle for 2028 to 2031 until we look at the full suite of master mobility plan projects, put them in the proper funding envelopes, and then consider them in a prioritization, ‘cause we may not be able to do them all.

[49:49] And where this falls in a prioritization, I’m not sure, but I’m not interested in getting ahead of those pieces. And again, Councilor McAllister is a ward counselor. I think he should be advocating for his ward. When I was a ward counselor, I’d certainly be advocating for mine. But now as mayor, I kind of have to take a bigger picture and look at the city as a whole. And I also don’t wanna get into the position of each and every ward counselor across the city coming forward with a couple of transportation projects to be considered in the master mobility plan process without the master mobility plan process concluding based on all the public feedback, technical analysis, and the work that staff have been doing.

[50:24] So again, and I say this with respect to Councilor McAllister, I think your advocacy for your ward is admirable. This is not something that I could possibly support at this time because of the reasons that I’ve suggested today. I’m not saying that this isn’t a possible solution in the future. It’s just not something that we should pre-suppose in the master mobility plan process or the prioritization of funding coming out of the master mobility plan process from, in my opinion. Councillor Trussell. Thank you, thank you very much to the chair and first to the ward counselor.

[51:03] Thank you, thank you very much for doing this. I know what it’s like to be getting a lot of pressure from constituents about particular problems in your ward. The reason why I’m supporting this, the reason why I’m supporting this and the reason why I actually wanted to take the additional step of moving it. And I wanna take the additional step of responding to the mayor’s very, very careful and reasonable concerns about this. This is not just a ward issue.

[51:36] This is a major thoroughfare that I’m not sure it was designed to be a major thoroughfare, but here it is, it’s a major thoroughfare. It’s also the front of a BIA. It’s the center part of several neighborhoods that go through there. One of the things that really bothers me about the configuration whenever I go up that road, which in all due respect to the ward counselor, I do try to avoid because it’s very perilous and especially if a car is parked. We need to do something to change this.

[52:12] I think it’s a citywide problem. It’s very close to downtown, especially the segment between Adelaide and Highbury. We’ve seen too many instances of collisions, injuries in this segment. And I think if we’re going to take the reduction of death and serious calamities seriously, we need to push this ahead. In terms of it competing with the other areas in the master mobility plan, I would just say good for the ward counselor.

[52:50] Maybe some more of it should be coming up with these and putting them on the table. I read this and I said, oh, wait a minute. I have still have a few things to say about Oxford that’s out there, but I want to commend the ward counselor for doing this. And I think it’s in the interest of the entire city. Finally, in terms of the funding, this does not push this particular project ahead of any other projects when we go to evaluate them. And maybe some other ones will come forward.

[53:24] So I really appreciate the concerns that the mayor is raising, but I am going to continue to support this because I don’t think we’re committing ourselves to do anything in the end besides look at it and recognize that it’s a bigger problem, which I think it is. So thank you very much. And just before I go to other committee members, I would like to go to staff. And if you could just take us through the process of what this motion is directing us to do, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[53:57] And certainly the moving council may wish to correct me if I’ve got this incorrect. So this motion would require the mobility master plan to identify the need for a future corridor study on Hamilton Road as one of the outcomes. The MMP is the view from 50,000 feet. So it won’t be doing this actual work. This would simply recommend that that study happen at some point after the conclusion of the MMP. That is not funded at this time. So we would be seeking funding to do that work in the context of all the other priorities of the MMP next year at its conclusion.

[54:29] The earliest the study could proceed would be 2026, which would allow implementation after that, assuming of course council both approves this motion and then when the MMP is considered, then continues to prioritize this study versus the many other outcomes of the MMP. Is that the information you’re looking for, Madam Chair? Yes, I am. And if I can just follow up with a couple of questions then. So this is the funding to identify or to a study to see if this streetscape, to improve the streetscape master plan or to look at alternatives.

[55:08] So the funding would come through as a business case in 2026, I just wanna understand ‘cause there’s no money for this to be done right now. Madam Chair, so because this is tied to the conclusion of the mobility master plan, and I would suggest that if this is approved, business cases for recommendations out of the master plan would be prepared as either budget amendments in next summer for the 2026 budget or they could also, and more likely for many of them, be part of the next multi-year budget. So the earliest amendment we’re funding would be sought would be this time next year for the 2026 budget year.

[55:48] And just to clarify, this is a study to identify what needs to be done in this area alone. Madam Chair, we certainly have heard the need for a functional corridor study on Hamilton Road to ensure its future function for all modes as part of the MMP. We are not at a point to make that recommendation, but yes, this would have to be a study to presuppose the outcome of a functional corridor study without having collision locations, geometry, public consultation, traffic volumes would be irresponsible in our part. Thank you for that.

[56:21] And any other questions, comments, Councillor Frank? Thank you, yes, and I’m not sure if this is to the Councillor or towards staff. I did have a question. I’m just wondering how this is materially different than the request that we had for the Oxford Wonderland review being included in the master mobility plan that was approved by Council, and I think that Councillor Layman and Raman were championing that. So I’m just, I see this is similar, but I’m not sure what is the difference between that motion and this one other than the location and specific layout descriptions.

[57:01] Ms. Chair. Madam Chair, the mobility master plan has included a review of the Wonderland corridor since prior to starting the mobility master plan, and that was a decision that was made when the four-laning project, sorry, the six-laning project was postponed or put on hiatus as a result of the climate emergency action plan. As growth has happened in that area, we will be looking at that network at a high level, and that is what MMPs do. So that work will occur as part of the MMP corridor studies that would decide sidewalk with the configuration of a bike lane, the presence of left turn lanes, traffic calming measures are not MMP-type work.

[57:38] So there’s two parts that’s what’s happening at Oxford and Wonderland. One is MMP, and it’s around the volume and the network. The other piece will be within neighborhood, and that is a separate study being done in conjunction with one of the developers as a traffic impact study. Councillor. So then for clarity, the reason why this one is considered different than the other one is because there were specific descriptions of a three-lane road with protected bike lanes and the sidewalks, if that was removed, then this would be similar to the Oxford and Wonderland motion.

[58:10] Madam Chair, I would not see it as the same as the Oxford and Wonderland network evaluation. We are not looking to manage capacity in this location to address future growth. We are looking at how the corridor currently functions with respect to all road users. It really is more of a corridor study versus an MMP future planning study. And we do do corridor studies throughout the city, external to the MMP all the time, that really is the appropriate place. This is recommending that we identify the need for that corridor study in the MMP, which in my mind guess is likely appropriate, although we haven’t finished the MMP, so we don’t know which other priorities for similar corridor studies would be included in the MMP.

[58:46] We’ll have to have that conversation, I believe, at council as to whether this would be a number one priority should this pass, or if there might be other ones that are more interested to proceed with more quickly. Councillor? I’m fine to hear from the award Councillors. I just wanna address a few things that kind of have been said. And just to the point in terms of prioritization and looking at the growth, I hear an awful lot about hybrid, especially hybrid going south to St. Thomas.

[59:22] We spent a lot of time focusing on that regional partnership and the growth that we’re gonna see in St. Thomas. So I have to admit, I’m a bit frustrated that, I’ll give you an example, Hamilton hybrid, that project. I remember going to the initial public discussion in 2014, 10 years on, we’re still talking about it, and it’s been pushed to 2029. I understand the realities of things happen, we have to move projects, but I think we are getting to the point where prioritization needs to happen for this area. And that is why I’m strongly advocating for this, because I am trying to anticipate the future growth, which I inevitably see happening, which is high volumes of traffic coming from our regional municipalities.

[1:00:08] You’ve got St. Thomas, they get Dorchester. There are areas that will be feeding into the east that are seeing substantial growth, and we need to be planning for them now. So I am trying my best in terms of coming up with solutions to address these things before they reach a breaking point, because I see where this growth is gonna come from. And I’m trying to do my due diligence, I’m trying to inform my colleagues, there’s gonna be substantial growth coming from these areas, and we really need to address the traffic concerns. Now, do we want Hamilton to be that express lane? Do we want it to be reduced in more of the PISTIS district, which the BIA might wanna have feedback on that?

[1:00:49] I think we need to have these discussions desperately now with the community, what do we envision Hamilton Road looking for looking like? I’m fine if colleagues wanna take out my explicit mention of the three lanes, that’s fine, because really I want this to be an opportunity for everyone to give input as to what they wanna see for Hamilton Road, because my primary concern at the end of the day is the safety of our citizens, and that’s what’s been driving this all along. I really do take it personally when whenever there’s a death on that road, it is something that I hear about, I feel it, I talk to the members of the community, it’s a real concern that I am trying to express with this motion in terms of looking at what could be done to ensure that people aren’t injured, people aren’t killed, we really need to look at this road in a serious way, and that is what is driving my intention behind this.

[1:01:44] I think there will be growth as to Councillor Frank’s point, we, you know, Oxford, Wonderland, yes, we’re seeing substantial growth in the Northwest, but I don’t think that we should ignore a main artery of the East, such as this, I think we have to give it serious consideration, and again, we need to do this work now, because I don’t wanna be in this position when Hamilton and Highbury, that major infrastructure project comes up in 2029, and we’re in a position where we say, well damn, we should have done the work years ago, and now we’re in a position where you’re gonna have substantial traffic feeding off of Highbury, and the roads cannot handle that volume, and they’re not designed properly, so I think we need to do it at the work now, I’m happy if my colleagues have friendly amendments that they think will make this more immutable, but I really do think we have to look at this now, before these other projects get off the ground.

[1:02:44] Thank you, Councillor. So I heard from you that you’re open to amendments, and maybe excluding the portion that says including, but not only to a three-lane configured road layout, and protected bike lanes, and accessible sidewalks, removing that, just some thoughts, committee members, concert for sale. Just thinking out loud here, what if instead of saying including, but not limited to, we say which could include, that way we’re not mandating anything, but we’re getting the idea across, and we’re not taking away any of the richness of the Councillors’ thoughts about what this could include, and I’ll make that as a motion, that we remove the words including, but not limited to, and substitute which could include.

[1:03:40] Councillor Tresault, you are the mover, so you just want to amend it to say, which can include, is your amendment? Yes. Sorry, which could include, three-lane reconfigured road layout, et cetera. So I’m looking for a seconder for that amendment, Councillor Frank, questions, comments, Councillor Frank.

[1:04:23] Thank you, yes. I’m more comfortable supporting this now, because we’re not restricting what the outcome would be in regards to the layout. I do understand the caution from staff about putting the cart before the horse, but I do feel now, and I think I will feel in the future, that Hamilton Road is a bit of a gong show, and so I do think that this needs to be reviewed, so I am not too nervous about making sure it is in the top five, at least for me priority, so I don’t mind supporting it at this point, because I think either way, I will likely support evaluating this one for redesign recommendations, given the amount of pedestrian and cyclist injuries and fatalities we’ve had on this section.

[1:05:05] Councillor Fuehrer. Thank you, Chair. The way language is now, it doesn’t constrain us, I guess, and it doesn’t preclude us for anything, so I like the way it is looking at the moment. I do want to say, I like the Councillors’ work on this, I like the Councillors’ vigor, as he was speaking to the issues of the street, he’s very well aware, I also want to look at staff too, and thank you for your work on this too. What I hear, I’m hearing from the Councillors, there’s a concern and a move to protect the community of the future along that stretch of Hamilton Road.

[1:05:38] I frequent that stretch myself as a commuter, I have friends who live on the road, businesses that I go to that I visit, sometimes I use that road to get the mulch that the city provides to London residents, it’s right off of that road as well, so I’m very aware of the traffic that we have there, I see this as a vote of confidence for the future of the people who commute on that street, people who live on the street, the people who work on that stretch of road, so I will support this with the way the amendment is written, and thanks to the Council on this, and I appreciate the discussion that we had here. Thank you for those comments, if the committee will allow me to make a comment from the chair, I wanna thank the Councillor for the work that you do in your community, I must admit, when I first read this, I was a little concerned that we would be presupposing the mobility master plan, and then I heard a comment here this morning going, “Well, we can be bringing further projects,” and I really don’t think that is what this motion is about, it is about doing a study for this area, given the many challenges that are going on, and looking into the future, we know studies and it takes time, and we need money to do these things, and I do not see this really interfering in any way, the mobility master plan at all, we can proceed with this study, and given the challenges in this area, and I know most of us that drive through this area, we can see the challenges on the road, so I will be supporting the motion going forward.

[1:07:24] Any other comments? Mayor Morgan. So I appreciate colleagues listening to some of the concerns I raised, and so I’ll say at this point, I’m still not willing to support the current motion, but I am willing to have a conversation with the word Councillor leading up to council. I would say based on what Ms. Chair said, about the context of how the master mobility plan worked, works, a motion that would have been brought along the lines of be requested to consider the need for corridor study as part of the process, which is what staff actually does.

[1:08:01] There’s gonna be probably a number of corridor studies that might need to be suggested across the city. It’s not just the south that has pressures, there’s a number of areas outside the city that are having population growth, pressures that are gonna put pressure on corridors within the municipal boundaries, and how those are prioritized, I don’t know the right answer to that yet, right? So if we just want staff to consider this, which I would presume they actually are in a number of areas of the city, is this the right place for a corridor study? I think that is already part of the master mobility plan, and if someone wanted to make that just clear, that’s probably something that I would be much closer to supporting, but I still think we started at a point where we got into presupposing some of the pieces of this, which I think is just one step down the road.

[1:08:47] Again, I certainly understand counselors advocating for their parts of the city, raising concerns, working with our staff, trying to ensure that things are identified in major planning processes as things that should be on the radar, and Councilor McAllister has done that today, and I doesn’t preclude my future support for things in this area that might alleviate the situation, but I’m still not ready to get ahead of the processes was defined by our staff in the way that they’re contemplating things, and I’m not convinced that this isn’t already something that they’re thinking about in the master mobility plan process in the context of all the other possible corridor studies that might need to be done.

[1:09:20] So again, I’m happy to think about it between now and Council. We’ve got a bit of time happy to have conversations with the ward councilor at this point at committee. My vote won’t be there, but I certainly appreciate the committee at least recognizing the concerns that I’ve raised initially here with presupposing some of the other important priorities through the master mobility plan, which I don’t know what they are yet, but there’s a lot that we need to do in the city from a transportation perspective, setting a 25 to 30 year plan is a big project, and there’s going to be a whole bunch of components of that that comes out of that that many of us will not be aware of at this point, because there’s so much public engagement, technical analysis and work that is done that lead into this process that I don’t like getting ahead of those complex technical processes.

[1:10:07] Thank you, Mayor Morrigan, for those comments and for being here this morning with us. And with that, any other comments? I see none, we can proceed, Councillor McAllister. Thank you and through the chair, I just want to end off this conversation. I do appreciate, honestly, I wanted to get this out there to have this discussion. I know I’ll have a more thorough discussion to council as well. To some of the points I’ve been hearing in terms of the prioritization, I really do think one of our roles as councillors is bringing these concerns forward, right?

[1:10:40] So I am completely open to hearing from my other colleagues and Councillor Frank referenced that one case with Councillor Lehman and Raman, where they don’t think any of us would deny Oxford and Wonderland as being a major choke point in terms of traffic. But I do want to hear from my colleagues. So please, if you do have those traffic concerns, you have those roads where you’re seeing a lot of issues, we don’t have insight into all of our inboxes, right? We drive on these roads, we see it for ourselves, but this was my attempt to bring forward what I hear very frequently.

[1:11:18] There is literally not a day goes by that someone doesn’t talk to me about speeding on Hamilton Road. It is a topic of great concern. I’m more than willing to have other emotions come forward for my colleagues if they have problem roads in their area. But I do think as we’re having this discussion, especially with the mobility master plan, this is the appropriate time to bring these concerns up. I do understand staff will do their good work, they’ll come back in terms of where they see issues. But from our point of view, I think we do have to call out these roads when we see issues occurring.

[1:11:56] So again, I thank you all for the discussion. I thank staff in terms of the discussions we were able to have leading into this. And I look forward to seeing what my colleagues have to say at council. Thank you. Thank you. And to committee members, we do have to vote on the amendment, which is in front of this, which reads the motion to amend the motion to remove, including but not limited to from part A of the main motion and changing the wording to, which could include.

[1:12:29] So with that, we can proceed to vote. Question, if we are both a mover and the seconder of the original, could we not just do a friendly amendment without having to vote on it? I guess we already have the vote pulled up, but I thought they would just do it. Never mind, we’ll just vote. It is an amendment, so we’ll proceed. Opposing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. And now we’re looking for a motion to approve the motion as amended.

[1:13:14] Councillor Ferrer and Councillor Frank’s seconding it. The motion is in front of us and proceed to vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to one. Moving on to deferred matters and additional business.

[1:13:52] The committee members will allow me. I do have an additional item, a business item. It’s a question to staff, a question. As we know, there’s a number of planning applications in our downtown area. And here at Civic Works, there are a number of infrastructure projects and studies that we have approved. And I would like to go to staff with an update on improvements in infrastructure projects on York Street. Thank you, through the chair.

[1:14:27] So yes, we are continuing to do quite a bit of work in the downtown that supports development and infill intensification in our downtown area. So this includes the current work being done on York Street, which includes capacities, sanitary sewer capacities for significantly higher densities than we’ve seen in the past. One of the key projects that is underway and the consultant appointment came to this committee not too long ago is the design work for the sanitary siphon underneath the forks of the Thames. So this is a critical bottleneck location for sanitary flows in the downtown and getting them to green wastewater treatment plant.

[1:15:08] So design work is underway. So this was a project that we already had planned as a life cycle project because the existing pipe is at the end of its life. So this is important because this project is not waiting on the 2028 DC study. This was already planned and is funded through the multi-year budget. Because we’re doing this work already, as we were transitioning or working through this project, we’ve seen the bigger priority for the infill and so on in the downtown.

[1:15:39] So we expanded the scope of the work to include increasing the capacity significantly. So this bottleneck will allow us, it’s estimated over 17,000 units. The additional that would be tributary to it while ensuring we’re not increasing overflows to the Thames River, that’s the other critical point here. So right now we, as we’ve been doing all the upgrade work through the rest of downtown in conjunction with rapid transit, we often have capacity in the sewer in front of the site, but not always to get it across the river.

[1:16:14] And we want to be very mindful that we’re getting the additional flows across the river to the treatment plant and not just having it going into the river when it rains, obviously. So that’s what we’re working on right now. That is slated for construction in 2025 and it is a high priority project for us to keep moving forwards. So that will be really the key thing. And we’re moving a lot of the holding provisions and so on on these sites as they come in through the downtown. Thank you very much for the update. And I look to committee members for a chairman. I am looking for a chairman.

[1:17:08] So the question, it’s additional business. A question was made to staff. I’ll go to committee members. If you want to ask questions, we’ll be up to the committee to decide on that. Councillor Ferrera. Thank you, chair. Am I able as well to also make comments and questions on the same topic for that additional business? It’s really up to the committee members to make that decision.

[1:17:41] I don’t, I’m not getting a response. Maybe you can follow up with staff after Councillor Ferrera. Okay, thanks. And with that, I am looking for a chairman, Councillor Frank and Councillor Ferrera. Hand vote, it’s carried, thank you.