October 15, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:01 PM; it being noted that Councillors P. Van Meerbergen, S. Franke and S. Hillier were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by C. Rahman

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

4.1 Personal Matter/Identifiable Individual

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2025 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List. (6.1/12/CPSC)

4.2 Personal Matter/Identifiable Individual  

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2025 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List. (6.2/12/CPSC)

4.3 Personal Matter/Identifiable Individual

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2025 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List. (6.3/12/CPSC)

4.4 Personal Matter/Identifiable Individual        

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2025 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List. (6.1/13/CWC)

4.5 Personal Matter/Identifiable Individual

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2025 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List. (6.1/15/SPPC)

4.6 Personal Matter/Identifiable Individual

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2025 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List. (6.2/15/SPPC)

4.7 Land Acquisition/Disposition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

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; 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 with respect to a heritage easement agreement for 39 Carfrae Street, London. (6.1/15/PEC)

4.8 Personal Matter / Identifiable Individual       

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2025 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List. (6.2/15/PEC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality (6.1/15/CSC)

4.10 Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations 

A matter pertaining to labour relations and employee negotiations in regard to one of the Corporation’s association or unions, advice and recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation including communications necessary for that purpose. (6.2/15/CSC)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

That Council convenes In Closed Session, from 1:05 PM to 1:47 PM.

At 1:10 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen leaves the meeting.

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

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the Minutes of the 15th Meeting of the Municipal Council, held on September 24, 2024, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

None.

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   12th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2024-10-01 CPSC Report

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 12th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of item 6 (5.1).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by D. Ferreira

The is BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) 9th Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by D. Ferreira

The following actions be taken with respect to the 9th Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on September 5, 2024:

a)    that, to enhance the protection of wildlife, the following actions be taken with respect to limiting rodenticides:

i)    the attached, revised, communication BE REFERRED to a Community and Protective Services Committee agenda; and,

ii)    the inclusion of a web page resource with information for the public about preventing wildlife, including rodents, from entering buildings and recommended control methods as well as the feasibility of printing information stickers for pest-prone areas of buildings, such as cafeterias and waste storage facilities, to reduce our reliance on the use of rodenticides and raise awareness of preventative control methods BE CONSIDERED by Civic Administration; and,

b)     clauses 1.1, 3.1, 3.2 and 5.1 to 5.4 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) Earl Nichols Recreation Centre Contribution Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 338)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated October 1, 2024, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 15, 2024, to:

a)    approve the Green and Inclusive Community Buildings (GICB) Program Contribution Agreement for Earl Nichols Arena Deep Energy Retrofit between His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities and The Corporation of the City of London, substantially in the form appended to the above-noted by-law;

b)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Agreement;

c)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or written designate, to approve and execute any further Amendments to the above-noted Agreement if the Amendments are substantially in the form of the above-noted Agreement; and,

d)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or written designate, to undertake all the administrative, financial and reporting acts that are necessary in connection with the above-noted Agreement. (2024-R05B)

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.3) Property Management Agreement with London and Middlesex Community Housing for 345 Sylvan Street (Relates to Bill No. 339)

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 October 1, 2024, related to a Property Management Agreement with London and Middlesex Community Housing for 345 Sylvan Street:

a) the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on Oct 15, 2024 to:

i) approve the property management agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and London & Middlesex Community Housing Inc. for the operation of 345 Sylvan Street;

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

iii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development to approve and execute amending agreements to the above-noted Agreement provided that no additional funding is required; and,

b) the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED. (2024-S11)

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.4) Cross Jurisdictional Fee Subsidy Agreement - Child Care and Early Years (Relates to Bill No. 340)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated October 1, 2024, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 15, 2024, to:

a)    approve the Cross Jurisdictional Fee Subsidy Agreement Template, as appended to the above-noted by-law;

b)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or their written designates, to approve and execute Cross Jurisdictional Fee Subsidy Agreements based on the above-noted Template;

c)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or their written designates, to edit and amend the Cross Jurisdictional Fee Subsidy Agreement Template from time to time in accordance with Provincial Guidelines and in accordance with the above-noted by-law; and,

d)    the delegation of power to the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, and their written designates, to act under this by-law, is subject to the following:

i)     such actions are consistent with the requirements contained in the above-noted Template;

ii)    such actions are in accordance with all applicable legislation;

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

iv)   such actions do not increase the indebtedness or liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London. (2024-S01)

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (5.2) 5th Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 5th Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on September 26, 2024:

a)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to report back at the November Accessibility Community Advisory Committee on the current status of cashless operations within the City of London’s purview with a particular focus on entertainment institutions like the Canada Life Centre and the impact these decisions may have the accessible community; and,

b)    clauses 1.1, 3.1 and 3.2 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (5.1) Award of RFP-2024-233 - Municipal Land for Affordable Housing Development at 1958 Duluth Crescent, Block 5

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated October 1, 2024, related to the Award of RFP-2024-233 Municipal Land for Affordable Housing Development at 1958 Duluth Crescent, Block 5:

a)    in accordance with s. 12 of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Wastell Developments Inc. (“Wastell Homes”) BE APPROVED as the City’s project partner to advance an affordable housing development at Block 5, 1958 Duluth Crescent (the “Property”);

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to divest the Property to Wastell Homes and allocate the Property value plus the pre-development costs as a municipal contribution to Wastell Homes to support the project development;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to align $2.3 Million from the Ontario Priorities Housing Initiative (OPHI) Year 6 funding to support the construction of new affordable housing units on the Property; noting that these funds must be committed to the project by December 2024;

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a Contribution Agreement or other necessary agreements between The Corporation of the City of London and Wastell Homes (the “Agreement”) and seek authorization from Municipal Council for the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement(s);

e)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts necessary to implement these recommendations, including to transfer title of the Property from the Housing Development Corporation, London to Wastell Homes at the appropriate time in the project plan;

f)    the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a Contribution Agreement with Wastell Homes; and,

g)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to request the use of Strong Mayor Powers for future affordable housing contract awards funded under the Roadmap to 3,000 Affordable Units to expedite the approval process for new affordable units;

it being noted that title to the subdivision established for 1958 Duluth Crescent is currently held by the Housing Development Corporation, London (HDC) and an HDC Board resolution, as appended to the above-noted staff report, authorizes the Civic Administration to administer the strategic initiatives and activities described in this report.

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the motion BE AMENDED in part e) to remove “from the Housing Development Corporation, London”.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That item 6, clause 5.1, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 6, clause 5.1, as amended, reads as follows:

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 October 1, 2024, related to the Award of RFP-2024-233 Municipal Land for Affordable Housing Development at 1958 Duluth Crescent, Block 5:

a)    in accordance with s. 12 of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Wastell Developments Inc. (“Wastell Homes”) BE APPROVED as the City’s project partner to advance an affordable housing development at Block 5, 1958 Duluth Crescent (the “Property”);

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to divest the Property to Wastell Homes and allocate the Property value plus the pre-development costs as a municipal contribution to Wastell Homes to support the project development;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to align $2.3 Million from the Ontario Priorities Housing Initiative (OPHI) Year 6 funding to support the construction of new affordable housing units on the Property; noting that these funds must be committed to the project by December 2024;

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a Contribution Agreement or other necessary agreements between The Corporation of the City of London and Wastell Homes (the “Agreement”) and seek authorization from Municipal Council for the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement(s);

e)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts necessary to implement these recommendations, including to transfer title of the Property to Wastell Homes at the appropriate time in the project plan;

f)    the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a Contribution Agreement with Wastell Homes; and,

g)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to request the use of Strong Mayor Powers for future affordable housing contract awards funded under the Roadmap to 3,000 Affordable Units to expedite the approval process for new affordable units;

it being noted that title to the subdivision established for 1958 Duluth Crescent is currently held by the Housing Development Corporation, London (HDC) and an HDC Board resolution, as appended to the above-noted staff report, authorizes the Civic Administration to administer the strategic initiatives and activities described in this report.

8.2   13th Report of the Civic Works Committee

10-02-2024 - CWC Report

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 13th Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of item 10 (3.2).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) 10th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 10th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on September 18, 2024, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) 2025 Stormwater Management Remediation Project Consultant Award

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 October 2, 2024, related to the 2025 Stormwater Management Remediation Project Consultant Award:

a)    Matrix Solutions Inc. BE APPOINTED Consulting Engineers in the amount of $119,279.00, including contingency (excluding HST) in accordance with Section 15.2 (d) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for the project BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Sources of Financing Report” as appended to the above-noted staff report;

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.3) Contract Amendment - RFP 17-20 Detailed Design for Sunningdale Road Improvements

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 October 2, 2024, related to the Contract Amendment for RFP 17-20 Detailed Design for Sunningdale Road Improvements:

a)    the contract with AECOM Canada Limited BE INCREASED by $1,416,336 to a total amended value of $2,184,081(excluding HST) to complete the detailed design and tendering services for the road improvements to Sunningdale Road in accordance with Section 20.3 (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for this contract amendment 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 the contract award and contract amendment; 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. (2025-T06)

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (2.4) W12A Landfill Community Mitigative Measures Fund - W12A Community Beautification Plan

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, and based on the approved motion of the W12A Landfill Public Liaison Committee, funding of $60,000 BE APPROVED from the W12A Landfill Community Mitigative Measures Fund for the preparation of a W12A Community Beautification Plan. (2024-F11)

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (2.5) Pond Mills Pumping Station Single Source Pump Purchase

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated October 2, 2024, related to the Pond Mills Pumping Station Single Source Pump Purchase under Section 14.4(d) of the City’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy:

a)     the price submitted by Directrik Inc. of $69,268.00, CAD (excluding HST) for the supply of one vertical turbine pump BE ACCEPTED;

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

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

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-E03)

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (2.6) Mud Creek East Branch Phase 2A - RFT-2023-128 - Oxford Street Culvert Installation - Construction Cost Increases

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to staff report dated October 2, 2024, related to the Mud Creek East Branch Phase 2A – RFT-2023-128 – Oxford Street Culvert Installation – Construction Cost Increase:

a)    the Mud Creek East Branch Phase 2A – Culvert Installation Project (Tender RFT-2023-128) construction contract value with Birnam Construction Ltd. BE INCREASED by $900,000.00 including contingency, for a total contract value of $4,256,250.56 (excluding HST) in accordance with Section 20.3 (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the Contract Administration fees for AECOM Canada Ltd. BE INCREASED in accordance with the estimate on file, by $177,117 (excluding HST), from $172,022.25 to a total upset amount of $349,139.25 in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

Motion Passed

8.2.8   (2.7) Appointment of Consulting Engineer - Highbury Avenue North Sidewalk and Cycle Track - Detailed Design and Tendering

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 October 2, 2024, related to the Appointment of Consulting Engineer - Highbury Avenue North Sidewalk and Cycle Track – Detailed Design and Tendering:

a)    BT Engineering Inc. BE APPOINTED to carry out the detailed design and tendering in the amount of $145,662 (excluding HST) in accordance with 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 report;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this 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 any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-T04)

Motion Passed

8.2.9   (3.1) 9th 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 9th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee (ESACAC):

a)    the following actions be taken with respect to the Climate Change Adaptation Discussion Primer Climate Emergency Action Plan / Get Involved London presentation:

i)    the presentation from M. Fabro, Manager, Climate Change Planning, BE RECEIVED; and,

ii)    the Climate Emergency Action Plan Working Group BE REQUESTED to review and report back at a future Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee meeting;

b)    clauses 1.1, 2.1, 3.1 to 3.5, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2 and 6.1 BE RECEIVED;

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

Motion Passed

8.2.10   (3.2) Memorandum of Understanding with the London Chamber of Commerce for Action on Climate Change (Relates to Bill No. 341)

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 October 2, 2024, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 15, 2024 to:

a)    authorize and approve a Memorandum of Understanding, as appended to the above-noted by-law, with the London Chamber of Commerce with respect to advancing joint climate action objectives with the mutual understanding that the combined expertise, influence and commitment are better applied together to support common goals; and,

b)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Memorandum of Understanding;

it being noted that a verbal delegation from G. Henderson, London Chamber of Commerce, with respect to this matter, was received. (2024-L15)

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

8.3   15th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

Post-Meeting Minutes - Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee_Oct08_2024 - English - Full

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 15th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of item 4 (3.1).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) 8th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 8th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee from its meeting held on September 12, 2024, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) 13th Report of the Governance Working Group

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 13th Report of the Governance Working Group from its meeting held on September 23, 2024:

a)  the report dated September 23, 2024 with respect to the updated General Policy for Community Advisory Committees BE DEFERRED to the November 25, 2024 meeting of the Governance Working Group for consideration; and

b)  clauses 1.1, 3.2 and 4.1 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (3.2) Steve Pellarin, Executive Director - Small Business Centre

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received the Annual Update from S. Pellarin, Executive Director, Small Business Centre, London.

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (3.3) Christina Fox, Chief Executive Officer - TechAlliance

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received the Annual Update from C. Fox, Chief Executive Officer, TechAlliance;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication, dated October 8, 2024 from TechAlliance with respect to funding to support and grow the innovation and entrepreneurship sector through the London Innovation Challenge program.

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (3.4) 2025 Amendments to Consolidated Fees and Charges By-law (Relates to Bill No. 343)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated October 8, 2024 as Appendix “B”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 15, 2024, for the purpose of repealing By-law No. A-59, as amended, being “A by-law to provide for Various Fees and Charges” and replacing it with a new 2025-2027 Consolidated Fees and Charges By-law that lists various fees and charges for services or activities provided by the City of London;

it being further noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with this matter.

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (3.5) Phase One Options Report, London Ward Boundary Review Project

Motion made by S. Lewis

That on the recommendation of the City Clerk, with respect to the London Ward Boundary Review project, the revised attached, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Ward Boundary Review Phase One Report, dated September 27, 2024, BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received the revised attached presentation from Watson & Associates Economist Ltd. with respect to this matter;

it being noted that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions regarding this matter:

  • G. Warren

Motion Passed

8.3.9   (3.6) 2025 Water and Wastewater Rates (Relates to Bills No. 348 and 349)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure and the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2025 Water and Wastewater rates and charges:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated October 8, 2024 as Appendix “A” to amend By-law WM-28 being “A by-law for regulation of wastewater and stormwater drainage systems in the City of London” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 15, 2024, to effect rates and charges increases of 5.4 percent effective January 1, 2025; and

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report as Appendix “B” to amend By-law W-8 being “A by-law to provide for the Regulation of Water Supply in the City of London” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 15, 2024, to effect rates and charges increases of 1.5 percent effective January 1, 2025;

it being further noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with this matter.

Motion Passed

8.3.10   (3.7) Chief T. Truong, Chief of Police

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received the attached presentation, attached community policing statistics, and heard a verbal delegation from Chief T. Truong, Chief of Police.

Motion Passed

8.3.11   (4.1) Whole of Community System Response - Evaluation Framework Reporting Template

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the Whole of Community System Response – Evaluation Framework Reporting Template BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a presentation from M. Kunze, Manager, Forensic and Supportive Housing Programs - St. Leonard’s Community Services with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.3.12   (4.2) Consideration of Appointment to the Greater London International Airport Authority Board

Motion made by S. Lewis

That Larry Weir BE APPOINTED to the Greater London International Airport Authority Board of Directors for the term ending July 31, 2027; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated September 10, 2024 from G. Kotsiomitis, Chair and M. Campbell, Chair – Governance Committee, Board of Directors, London International Airport with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.3.13   (4.3) RBC Place London Board Appointment Recommendations

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the request from the Board of Directors RBC Place London BE REFERRED to Civic Administration to draft a revised London Convention Centre Corporation by-law and report back to the November 19, 2024 meeting of Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee.

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated September 27, 2024 from D. Pollard, CEO, RBC Place London with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.3.14   (4.4) Consideration of Appointment to the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee (Requires up to 5 New Members)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That N. Lippay and L. Heffernan BE APPOINTED to the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee for the term ending March 31, 2025.

Motion Passed

8.3.15   (5.1) Standing Committees and Realignment to Committee Mandates

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated October 3, 2024 from Mayor J. Morgan, Deputy Mayor S. Lewis and Councillor C. Rahman with respect to the Standing Committees and realignment of committee mandates.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (3.1) Kapil Lakhotia, President and Chief Executive Officer -London Economic Development Corporation

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received the Annual Update from K. Lakhotia, President and Chief Executive Officer, London Economic Development Corporation.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

8.4   15th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2024-10-02 PEC Report

At 2:12 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair.

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

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 15th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of item 5 (3.1).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) Planning and Development and Building Housing Update - 2024 Year-To-Date

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the staff report dated October 2, 2024 entitled “Planning & Development and Building Housing Update - 2024 Year-To-Date” BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.2) Information Report on Provincial Planning Statement, 2024

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the staff report dated October 2, 2024 entitled “Information Report on Provincial Planning Statement (PPS), 2024” BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.3) 9th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 9th Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on September 19, 2024 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (3.2) 32 Chesterfield Avenue (Z-9768) (Relates to Bill No. 350)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application by Pearl Investments ,(c/o MHBC), relating to the property located at 32 Chesterfield Avenue, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 2, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 15, 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 R4 (R4-3) Zone TO Residential R2 (R2-1) Zone, a Residential R2 Special Provision (R2-1()) Zone, and an Open Space Special Provision (OS4()) Zone;

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;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the PPS 2020; 

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the character of the existing neighbourhood area and will not negatively impact surrounding properties; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized site within the Urban Growth boundary 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.

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (3.3) 1350-1352 Webster Street (Z-9767) (Relates to Bill No. 351)

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 North Development Corp., (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the property located at 1350-1352 Webster Street:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 2, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 15, 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 (R1-6) Zone, TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-6(_)) Zone;

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

i)    the removal and restoration of the cul-de-sacs at Croatia Road and Sandra Road to create standard Neighbourhood Street right-of-way; and,

ii)    city boulevards and driveways of abutting properties on Croatia Road and Sandra Road to be restored and a connection from the private sidewalk on site to the municipal sidewalks be provided. This work should be at no cost to City and solely on the private developer;

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.;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.4.8   (3.4) 850 Highbury Avenue - London Psychiatric Hospital Lands (Z-9577/O-9766) (Relates to Bills No. 344, 352)

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., relating to the property located at 850 Highbury Avenue:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 2, 2024 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 15, 2024, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London as follows:

i)    REVISE Map 1 – Place Types – to redesignate the subject lands FROM Transit Village and Green Space Place Types TO modified areas comprising Transit Village and Green Space Place Types;

ii)    REVISE Map 3 – Street Classifications - to MODIFY the Neighbourhood Connectors within the London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan;

iii)    REVISE Map 4 – Active Mobility Network - to MODIFY the Cycling and Walking Routes within the London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan;

iv)    REVISE London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan Section 3.0 Character Area Land Use Designations to AMEND the Transit-Oriented Corridor Policy Area 1 and divide into Transit-Oriented Policy Area 1A for the corner of Highbury Avenue North and Oxford Street East and Policy 1B for the rest of the former Policy Area 1;

v)    REVISE London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan Section 3.0 Character Area Land Use Designations to REMOVE references to the Standard Maximum Height and REPLACE references to the Upper Maximum Height with Maximum Height;

vi)    REVISE London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan Section 3.2, including Table 1 – Summary of Maximum and Minimum Permitted Heights by Designation as follows:

i)    REMOVE references to the Standard Maximum Height and Upper Maximum Height and REPLACE with Maximum Height;

ii)    redesignate Transit-Oriented Corridor Policy Area 1A FROM a Maximum of 22 storeys TO a Maximum of 32 storeys;

iii)    redesignate Transit-Oriented Corridor Policy Area 1B FROM a Maximum of 22 storeys TO a Maximum of 30 storeys;

iv)    redesignate Transit-Oriented Corridor Policy Area 2A FROM a Maximum of 12 storeys TO a Maximum of 20 storeys;

v)    redesignate Transit-Oriented Corridor Policy Area 2B FROM a Maximum of 16 storeys TO a Maximum of 25 storeys;

vi)    redesignate Residential Policy Area 1A FROM a Maximum of 4 storeys TO a Maximum of 8 storeys on lands located more than 80 metres from the Treed Allée along Street C;

vii)    revise the Built Form and Intensity policies for the western portion of Residential Policy Area 1A to permit heights above the 8 storeys shown on Schedule 4, up to 12 storeys adjacent to the Transit Oriented Corridor Designation subject to the recommendations of a Heritage Impact Assessment acceptable to the City;

viii)    redesignate Residential Policy Area 1B FROM a Maximum of 12 storeys TO a Maximum of 20 storeys; and,

ix)    redesignate Village Core FROM a Maximum of 4 storeys TO a Maximum of 8 storeys on lands located more than 60 metres from a heritage designation;

vii)    REVISE London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan Schedule 1 – Community Structure Plan to MODIFY the street network; MODIFY the Active Transportation Connection; and change the land use FROM Lowrise-Midrise and Open Space TO Lowrise-Midrise and Open Space;

viii)    REVISE London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan Schedule 2 – Character Areas to MODIFY the street network and change the land use FROM Residential and Open Space Designations TO Residential and Open Space Designations;

ix)    REVISE London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan Schedule 3 – Sub Area Designations as follows:

i)    MODIFY the street network; 

ii)    AMEND the sub area designations for Blocks 6 & 27 FROM Residential Policy Area 1A and Open Space Policy Area 1 TO Residential Policy Area 2 and Open Space Policy Area 1; and,

iii)    AMEND the sub area designations for Blocks 13-15 FROM Transit-Oriented Corridor Policy Area 1 TO Transit-Oriented Corridor Policy Area 1B;

iv)    AMEND the sub area designations for Block 16 FROM Transit-Oriented Corridor Policy Area 1 TO Transit-Oriented Corridor Policy Area 1A; and,

v)    AMEND the sub area designations for Blocks 17 & 18 FROM Transit-Oriented Corridor Policy Area 2B TO Transit-Oriented Corridor Policy Areas 1B and 2A;

x)    REVISE London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan Schedule 4 – Building Height Plan as follows:

i)    MODIFY the street network; 

ii)    AMEND the minimum-maximum height for Block 7 FROM 2-4 Storeys and Open Space TO 2-6 Storeys and Open Space;

iii)    AMEND all references to Standard Maximum Height indicated on Schedule 4 for each Sub Area Designation WITH the Maximum Height; 

iv)    AMEND the maximum height for Block 16 FROM 22 Storeys TO 32 Storeys;

v)    AMEND the maximum height for Blocks 13-15 and 17 FROM 22 Storeys TO 30 Storeys;

vi)    AMEND the maximum height for Block 12 FROM 16 Storeys TO 25 Storeys;

vii)    AMEND the maximum height for Blocks 18 and 19 FROM 12 and 16 Storeys TO 20 Storeys;

viii)    AMEND the maximum height for the western portions of Blocks 10 and 11 FROM 4 Storeys TO 8 Storeys;

ix)    AMEND the maximum height for Blocks 2 and 26 FROM 12 Storeys TO 20 Storeys; and,

x)    AMEND the maximum height for Block 1, the eastern portion of Block 3, and the western portion of Block 4 FROM 4 Storeys TO 8 Storeys;

xi)    REVISE London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan Schedule 5 – Street Hierarchy Plan to MODIFY the Neighbourhood Streets and Neighbourhood Connectors;

xii)    REVISE London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan Schedule 6 – Pedestrian and Cycling Network to MODIFY the street network; relabel FROM Buffered Bike Lane TO In-Boulevard Bike Lane and MODIFY the In-Boulevard Bike Lane and Multi-Use Pathway;

xiii)    REVISE London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan Schedule 7 – Cultural Heritage Framework to MODIFY the street and block fabric;

xiv)    REVISE London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan Schedule 8 – Urban Design Priorities to MODIFY the Priority View Terminus, street and block fabric; and,

xv)    REVISE London Psychiatric Hospital Secondary Plan Schedule 9 – Potential Noise and Vibration Impact Area to MODIFY the street network; and change the land use FROM Residential and Open Space TO modified areas comprising Residential and Open Space;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 2, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 15, 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 Regional Facility (RF) Zone TO a Residential Special Provision R9 (R9-7()-H105) Zone, Holding Residential Special Provision R9 (h-80-R9-7()-H98 Zone, Holding Residential Special Provision R9 (h-80-R9-7()-H82 Zone, Holding Residential Special Provision R9 (h-80-h-240-R9-7()-H66) Zone, Holding Residential Special Provision R9 (h-80-h--R9-7(**)-H66) Zone, Holding Residential Special Provision R5/R9/ Neighbourhood Facility (h-80-h--R5-7()/R9-7()-H66/NF1) Zone,  Holding Residential Special Provision R5/R9 (h-80-h--R5-7()/R9-7()-H66) Zone, Holding Residential Special Provision R5/R8 (h-80-h--R5-7()/R8-4()-D150-H28) Zone, Holding Residential Special Provision R5/R8 (h-80-h--R5-7()/R8-4()-D125-H22) Zone, Holding Residential Special Provision R5/R8 (h-80-h--R5-7()/R8-4()-D125) Zone, Holding Residential Special Provision R8 (h-80-h--R8-4()-D150) Zone, Business District Commercial / Community Facility / Heritage (BDC/CF2/CF3/HER) Zone, Holding Business District Commercial / Community Facility / Heritage (h-80-h--BDC/CF2/CF3/HER) Zone, Holding Neighbourhood Facility/Open Space (h-*-OS1/NF1) Zone, Open Space (OS1) Zone, and Urban Reserve (UR1) Zone;

c)    the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the following issues were raised at the public participation meeting with respect to the application review process relating to the property located at 850 Highbury Road North:

  •    the proposed application needs more green space;

  •    there is too much surface parking, parking should be underneath the buildings;

  •    the buildings should not be built so close to Highbury Avenue and Oxford Street East as the pollution from car exhaust impacts both residents and pedestrians;

  •    there are too many roads on the proposed property, there should be more pedestrian walkways and green trails;

  •    with the disbanding of the Urban Design Peer Review Panel, the proposed building does not have an attractive architectural design;

  •    there is no space for urban gardens which are being installed throughout the world as vertical gardens; and,

  •    the owner of the adjoining factory indicated that the noise from the factory may impact the future residents in this proposed application;

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

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

ii)    the provision for publicly-accessible pedestrian and/or cycling connections through proposed large development blocks site connecting with the adjacent pedestrian & cycling networks and rapid transit stations;

iii)    the provision of enhanced landscaped open space features on large development blocks and the limiting of surface parking areas to ensure adequate amenity space and tree canopy;

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

v)    investigate renewal 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;

vii)    utilize bird friendly policies using the CSA standard; and,

viii)    the impacts of proposed development on the heritage designated Block 20, the Horse Barn, be assessed through a Heritage Impact Assessment to the satisfaction of the City of London which considers mitigation measures such as the appropriate height, setback, and podium step backs for buildings located near Block 20;

e)    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 Old Oak Properties Incorporated (Application File No. 39T-21503),  prepared by Development Engineering (London) Limited, File No. DEL19-009, which shows a draft plan of subdivision consisting of one (1) low density residential block, eight (8) medium residential density blocks, two (2) medium density residential/mixed use blocks, eight (8) high density residential/mixed use blocks, six (6) heritage blocks, one (1) institutional block, one (1) parkland block, four (4) open space / servicing blocks, one (1) stormwater management block, one (1) rail line block, one (1) future develop block, one (1) road widening block, served by the extension of Rushland Avenue, Howland Avenue, Spanner Street, and seven (7) new streets (Streets A through G);

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

  •    the staff presentation;

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

  •    M. Bierbaum, Vice President, Construction and Development, Old Oak Properties;

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

  •    A.M. Valastro; and,

  •    J. Peretz;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to, Our Strategy, City Building Policies, and the vision for the Transit Village Place Type; 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.

Motion Passed

8.4.9   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the August 19, 2024 Deferred Matters List BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (3.1) 9th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 9th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on September 11, 2024 BE RECEIVED and NO FURTHER ACTION BE TAKEN relating to the request to consider designating the City Hall building located at 300 Dufferin Avenue;

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard verbal delegations from J.-M. Metrailler, Chair, Community Advisory Committee on Planning and S. Miller, with respect to these matters.

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

8.5   15th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2024-10-07 CSC Report 15

Motion made by H. McAlister

That the 15th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by H. McAlister

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.1) SS-2024-291 Single Source Print Contract (Relates to Bill No. 342)

Motion made by H. McAlister

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports the following actions be taken, with respect to Enterprise Print Services:

a)    approval hereby BE GIVEN to enter into an agreement between the City of London and Ricoh Canada Inc. through Vendor of Record (VOR # 11359), Province of Ontario Agreement, as appended to the staff report as Appendix “A” for a five (5) year term; 

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated October 7, 2024 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on Tuesday, October 15, 2024 to:

i)    the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports BE AUTHORIZED to approve a buyer master agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Ricoh Canada Inc. from November 1, 2024 to October 31, 2029; and

ii)    the Mayor and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the buyer master agreement;

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

d)    Information Technology Services BE AUTHORIZED to increase or decrease the quantity of machines and related supplies and services based on terms and conditions established in the contract, coincident with the needs of the various departments in future as numbers of users change due to increase in staff, relocation of work units or copy requirements change and subject to budget availability; and

e)    approval hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation negotiating the maintaining of satisfactory prices, terms and entering a formal contract, agreement or having a purchase order relating to the subject matter of this approval.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.2) City of London’s Credit Rating

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the City of London’s Credit Rating Report, providing a summary of Moody’s Investors Service Credit Opinion of the City of London, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (2.4) 2024 Mid-Year Capital Budget Monitoring Report

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 2024 Mid-Year Capital Budget Monitoring Report:

a) the 2024 Mid-Year Capital Budget Monitoring Report BE RECEIVED for information, it being noted that the life-to-date capital budget represents $4.3 billion with $2.3 billion committed and $2 billion uncommitted; it being further noted that the City Treasurer, or designate, will undertake the housekeeping budget adjustments identified in the report, in accordance with the Multi-Year Budget Policy;

b) the status updates of active 2021 life-to-date capital budgets (2021 and prior) having no future budget requests, as appended to staff report as Appendix “B”, BE RECEIVED for information;

c) the following actions be taken with respect to the completed capital projects identified in Appendix “C”, as appended to the staff report, which have a total of $7.73 million of net surplus funding:

i) the capital projects included in Appendix “C” BE CLOSED;

ii) the following actions be taken with respect to the funding associated with the capital projects approved for closure in b) i), above:

Rate Supported

A) pay-as-you-go funding of $7.8 thousand BE TRANSFERRED from capital receipts;

B) authorized debt financing of $69 thousand BE RELEASED resulting in a reduction of authorized, but unissued debt;

C) uncommitted reserve fund drawdowns of $1.0 million BE RELEASED back into the reserve funds which originally funded the projects;

Non-Rate Supported

D) uncommitted reserve fund drawdowns of $1.9 million BE RELEASED back into the reserve funds which originally funded the projects;

E) authorized debt financing of $4.6 million BE RELEASED resulting in a reduction of authorized, but unissued non-rate supported debt;

F) other net non-rate supported funding sources of $113 thousand BE ADJUSTED in order to facilitate project closings.

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (2.3) 2024 Mid-Year Operating Budget Monitoring Report

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 2024 Mid-Year Operating Budget Monitoring Report:

a)    the 2024 Operating Budget Mid-Year Monitoring Report for the Property Tax Supported Budget, Water Budget, and Wastewater and Treatment Budget BE RECEIVED for information. An overview of the corporate projections are outlined below, noting the year-end positions include the reserve and reserve fund contributions listed in recommendation b) and Tables 1, 2, and 3, while noting actual results could fluctuate based on factors beyond the control of the Civic Administration:

i)    Property Tax Supported Budget projected to be balanced at year-end;

ii)    Water Rate Supported Budget projected surplus of $0.4 million; and

iii)    Wastewater and Treatment Rate Supported Budget projected to be balanced at year-end;

it being noted that any reported Property Tax, Water, and Wastewater & Treatment Budget surplus will be allocated in accordance with the Council Approved Surplus/Deficit Policy;

b)    the contribution of year-end Property Tax Supported, Water Rate Supported and Wastewater and Treatment Rate Supported Budget surplus to the applicable Contingency Reserve in accordance with the Council approved Surplus/Deficit Policy BE RECEIVED for information:

i)    $15.1 million to the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve, noting the balance remains under its target;

ii)    $1.2 million to the Water Budget Contingency Reserve, noting the balance remains under target; and

iii)    $0.6 million to the Wastewater and Treatment Budget Contingency Reserve, noting the balance remains under its target;

it being noted that the contributions to the respective budget contingency reserves are being made to replenish these reserves that will be utilized to finance the 2024 projected cost of statutory development charges exemptions and discounts resulting from recent legislative changes that are in excess of budgeted amounts and otherwise unfunded.

Motion Passed

8.6   3rd Report of the Audit Committee

2024-09-18 Audit Report 3

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 3rd Report of the Audit Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.6.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.6.2   (4.1) Briefing Note From Internal Audit

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the communication from MNP, with respect to the briefing note from the internal auditor, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.6.3   (4.2) Internal Audit Follow Up Activities Dashboard

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the communication from MNP, with respect to the internal audit follow up activities update dashboard, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.6.4   (4.3) HRIS Readiness Assessment - Recommendations and Roadmap

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the HRIS Readiness Assessment - Recommendations and Roadmap from MNP dated August 14, 2024 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.6.5   (4.4) Accessibility Review

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Accessibility Review from MNP dated September 3, 2024 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

9.   Added Reports

9.1   16th Report of the Council in Closed Session

Motion made by H. McAlister

That Clause 1 of the 16th Report of Council, In Closed Session, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

That Clause 1 of the 16th Report of the Council, In Closed Session, read as follows:

  1. Settlement Agreement – 670 First Street – East London Link Project Phase 4

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 670 First Street, further described as Part Lot 69, Plan 19, Designated Parts 1 and 2, Plan 33R-6177, designated as Parts 22, 23 and 24, Plan 33R-21810, in the City of London, being part of PIN  08107-0001, 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 from 829872 Ontario Limited, to settle the compensation to the property owner, for the total sum of $11,700.00, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C” BE ACCEPTED, and subject to the following conditions:

i)    the City agreeing to remove the tree along Oxford Street by December 31, 2024, to facilitate sign relocation;

ii)    the Owner agreeing to remove the signage by March 31, 2025 following the tree removal. The City agreeing to pay the Owner’s costs for sign removal and potential relocation, up to $15,000.00, upon receipt of professional invoices. The Owner is responsible for obtaining necessary permits for signage at the new location; and

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

That progress was made with respect to items 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8 and 4.10 as noted on the public agenda, (6.1/12/CPSC), (6.2/12/CPSC), (6.3/12/CPSC), (6.1/13/CWC), (6.1/15/SPPC), (6.2/15/SPPC), (6.1/15/PEC), (6.2/15/PEC), (6.2/15/CSC)

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

Councillor S. Stevenson enquires with respect to the office to residential conversion program and the occupancy status of the first approved project.  The Director and Chief Building Official provides a response.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 336 to Bill 352, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 336 to Bill 352, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 336 to Bill No. 352, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Introduction and First Reading of Added Bill No. 353, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Second Reading of Added Bill No. 353, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Third Reading and Enactment of Added Bill No. 353, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 2:59 PM.

Appendix: New Bills

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (2 hours, 12 minutes)

Okay, thank you, please be seated. All right, welcome to the 16th Meeting of Council on October 15th. I’m gonna start with the land acknowledgement. We acknowledge that we’re gathered on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabak, Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwock, and Adewan drawn peoples.

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

Also, 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 Council Agenda at London.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. Okay, next we’ll do the singing of National Anthem. Charlie Weber is a local troubadour, lead singer, and the lead singer of Glorious Failure, and an award-losing singer-songwriter.

Charlie has been playing in London and across Canada around the world for over a decade. You can catch his featured performances, the Forest City Film Festival this weekend. Please join me in welcoming Charlie, who will now perform the National Anthem for us, and please rise for that. ♪ Head up, give land, true, treat low ♪ ♪ Hey, see rise, true, no strong and free ♪ ♪ Far and wide, okay, we stand on guard ♪ ♪ For we stand on guard ♪ We’re on two disclosures of pecuniary interest, I’ll look to colleagues for any disclosures.

Okay, seeing none, there are no recognitions today, unless anybody has one. Review of confidential matters, if we consider it in public, there are none. We have council and closed session, of which there are 10 items. So I’ll look for a motion to move into camera for that session.

Moved by Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Raman. Any discussion? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Mr.

Stevenson, closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Okay, and we’ll move to Committee Room 5. Thank you, please be seated.

Okay, that concludes our in-camera session. We have a confirmation signing at the minutes of previous meetings. We have the 15th meeting, which was held on September 24th. 2024, I need a mover and a seconder for that.

Councilor McAllister, seconded by Councilor Ferrara. Any discussion on the minutes? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Mr.

Van Meerbergen, seconded by Councilor Van Meerbergen. Do you close in the vote? Motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, no communications and petitions this time.

No motions to which notice was given. We’re on to reports. We have the 12th report of the Community and Protective Services Committee. I’ll turn it over to the chair to present the report.

Thank you, Mayor, please report the 12th report of the Community and Protective Services Committee. I have no declarations of interest and I had no pull request, but I do actually want to point out that there is a revised item for item six, 5.1, just some housekeeping items or housekeeping amendments to that and that was circulated to Council. Yeah, so we’ll do that separate then for sure. So 5.1 will be separate.

Does anybody want anything else separate on this agenda? Okay, seeing none, you can make a motion. All right, I can move one, items one through five and item seven, excluding six. Okay, those items run the floor by the chair.

Any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Close in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, Councillor.

So this is the one that you said there was an amendment for. So you can put the original on the floor and then if you like, you can also move the revised language. Thank you, Mayor. So I should put the original on the floor.

Okay, I’ll put the original item on the floor and let me know when to move the revised language. Actually, I’ll move the revised language right now. Okay, so I need a seconder for the revised language. Councillor Ploza and colleagues, that was circulated as an amendment sheet.

I’ll see if there’s any questions though. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I was just looking for some clarity ‘cause my understanding was this was strong mayor powers but it’s coming and now being moved as an amendment. So I’m just a little confused.

Is it strong mayor or is this something that Council’s doing? So I’ll clarify, this one was not used by strong mayor powers. This one came directly and normally through the committee process. I would say there was a clause in there where staff asked to use a basically bring forward affordable, I think there’s a clause G in there, which is a request by staff to seek some council direction which I suggested they do before I would bring forward these.

But even under strong mayor legislation, the only thing that I would end up doing with that would be bring directly to council and skipping the committee cycle process. So this is just a regular process through committee suggested change that staff have identified between the committee meeting and now that is required based on their understanding of the components of the motion. Okay, thank you. Could we just get an update from staff on this?

Sure, we’re gonna give just a short overview of why there’s an amendment piece. Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair. So essentially what this allows us to do is cut off four weeks of our cycle for the approval.

This particular procurement was actually closed in early September and then the evaluations were done around that same time. So you see that now we’re at council in the middle of October and this would actually allow us to work. It would have been the last council cycle which would have sped up our time to get more affordable housing bill. Yeah, I think the councilor’s question was just an articulation of the change from the committee recommendation to the amendment sheet which I believe if I looked at it correctly, it’s dropping the term housing development corporation from clause E.

Thank you and to you, Mr. Chair. Essentially it’s just allowing us some efficiency when we go to actually transfer the land from the HDC to Westdale homes. The city, it just basically simplifies the language and allows us to do that more quickly, more efficiently.

So any other questions on that? Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship, I’m gonna be brief. I just wanna take the opportunity to thank Mr.

Felberg and his team for moving this forward. This is a redevelopment of a former school land that we purchased in my ward. The property’s been sitting vacant for a while. We’ve had a plan of subdivision come through planning committee and now we’ve got our first partner on some of the bill there.

A lot more to do. I do wonder if very quickly, I don’t know if this would be Mr. Felberg or Ms. Share, but if we could get a quick from staff as to part of this plan of subdivision requires a new road opening, Duluth being completed, which will have its own disruption for the neighborhood.

So delighted that Westdale is coming forward to start the build. Do we know when the road opening or at least the construction road opening is anticipated to happen? Go ahead. Through you, Mr.

Chair. So the design of the road is actually at about a 90% right now. So we’re getting close to being able to tender. So we’re anticipating in the early part of 2025, we’ll go out for tender.

We’ll find a contractor and start construction. This is a lot of just in time kind of thing. So we’ll be getting Westdale out there starting some of their work and some of their site grading while also constructing the road at the same time. We’ll also be addressing any safety concerns from the constructor of policies and issues that we may have as well.

Great, thank you for that. Happy to see this project moving forward. Going to be a great addition to the ward. And I hope that we’re taking notes and making templates so that if we want to replicate some of this on the Fairmount School Lands and Councilor from Calistair’s ward in the future that the opportunity to replicate it is there as well because I think there’s some opportunity for more affordable housing to come in the East End where we’ve acquired some lands.

So thank you for the work on that. Okay, and just to remind everybody, we’re on the amendment, which is just removing the words from the Housing Development Corporation, Common London from clause E. And that’s moved and seconded. Any other debate on the amendment?

Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. And now for a mover and seconder for the as amended motion, Councillor Frara and seconded by Councillor Cuddy. Any discussion on the as amended motion?

Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you, and that concludes the 12th report of the Community Protective Services Committee. Great, thanks.

We’re on to the 13th report of Civic Works Committee, Councillor Hopkins. Yes, thank you, Your Worship. I’d like to put the 13th meeting of the Civic Works Committee on the floor. I’ve had no one ask to pull anything.

Would anybody like anything dealt with separately from this committee? Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I’d just like to pull 10. Anyone else, something separate?

Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, it was a very productive meeting. We approved seven consent items and we received two delegations, one from the chair of the ECAC Advisory Committee, as well as Graham Henderson. Oh, that one is being pulled.

So I’ll wait for that one. That is my report then. Okay, so you’re willing to put one through nine on the floor? That’s on the floor by the chair.

Any discussion on those items? Go ahead, Councillor Troso. Just a brief question through the chair. Sorry, it’s council.

Just a brief question through the chair, Deaf. Could we be any more precise in terms of what the reasoning is on the Mud Creek matter for the additional costs? ‘Cause this is not the first time this has come to council. Go ahead, thank you and through your worship.

The additional costs related to Mud Creek are subsoil geotechnical conditions, as well as some permitting delays. The permitting delays have been addressed and we are confident we have the geotechnical conditions fully in hand. Is there an estimate to the chair as to how much additional time this is going to take and before this project is deemed complete such that the holding provisions can be removed? Go ahead.

I apologize your worship. I don’t have that answer with me, but I can provide it to the council via email. Is it just roughly, there would be some delay of at least some period of time, right? Go ahead.

Thank you your worship. There has been some delays. We’ve been waiting for the final permitting from Upper Thames. We have received those permits at this time as I understand we’re a few months behind and we expect to continue to complete the work over the next year.

Councillor Troso. Is there any obligation to the chair for the developer or the property owner to pay for all or any of this in terms of reimbursing the city? Thank you your worship. The majority of these costs are actually DC funded through the sewer rate reserves.

So it is development funded overall. There’s no developer requirement to pay for this work. The delays are related to the conditions on the city project as well as the permitting delays. So not in the hands of the developer north of Oxford.

Thank you, no further questions. Okay, thanks. Any other questions on the matters before us, which is all of the Civic Works Committee with the exception of 10. Okay, we’ll open that for voting.

Opposing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Councillor Hopkins. Yes, I’d like to put number 10 the memorandum of understanding with the London Chamber of Commerce for action on climate change on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor by the chair.

Any questions on that one? Go ahead Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I just have a quick comment. It’s kind of more of a silent protest vote, I guess.

I’m gonna be voting no and it’s not so much that I’m against what’s here, but that we’ve got businesses struggling all over the city with theft and vandalism and social disorder issues. And although this is, I’m really hoping that we’re gonna see something come forward from the city where maybe we could join in with London Chamber of Commerce or other organizations and do something to help our small businesses in the city. Okay, any other discussion on this? Go ahead Councillor Troso.

Well, I’d like to really thank the Chamber of Commerce for coming forward with this. And I think this goes to the fact that we can be doing more than one thing at once. There are a lot of different ways we could be assisting businesses. And there are a lot of productive roles that the Chamber of Commerce could be playing in this city.

And this is certainly one of them and I enthusiastically support this. And really want to, again, thank the Chamber for coming forward with this. Okay, any other speakers? Go ahead Councillor Pribble.

Thank you and I did have one, Mr. Henderson will see you. I did ask the questions in regards to our other cooperation and more use in terms of the aspects what was already said here. Homelessness, growing businesses, et cetera.

I take this as a first step and I take this as a, when I actually had a conversation with him after and I take this as an opportunity to maximize our higher levels of government funding. And but I’m hoping this is the first step and we are going to focus on the commerce and opportunity to grow our businesses and the next ones will be MOUs, between City and Chamber and these aspects. Thank you. Okay, thank you, anyone else?

Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, if I may just add to the Chamber’s delegation, one of the comments made by the Chamber which made me really think this is important for Council to discuss is that there are many, many small businesses that belong to the Chamber and they all do want to play a part of doing something when it comes to climate change and this MOU is an opportunity to make that happen. So I am very supportive of this moving forward. Okay, I don’t see any of the speakers so we’re going to open this for voting.

Those in the vote motion carries 14 to one. And that is my report. Thank you, Councillor. I have the 15th report of SPPC next.

That’s item 8.3, I’ll turn it over to Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m happy to present the 15th report of the Street to Priorities and Policy Committee. I have not been asked to have any items pulled by colleagues so if you’d like to canvas and see if there’s any items, otherwise I’ll move the whole report.

Sure, I’ll look for any items separate. Councillor Stevenson. I’d like to pull four, please. Okay, no problem, four.

Anybody else with something separate? Okay, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. So I’ll move one through three and five through 15.

All right, any discussion on those items? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Go ahead, and I will now put item four on the floor.

All right, any discussion on four? Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I just wanna say the similar comments that I made at SPPC. It’s not that I am questioning the work that LEDC does, but I do believe that a 2.5 million dollar contract should have a budget that the public can see where the money is going.

And I do believe that we should know what salaries are being paid, because given what’s happened at LHSC and TV DSP just recently, I think there’s a reasonable expectation from the public to say are we doing our due diligence in terms of knowing whether there’s a $400,000 salaries here. And so for that reason, I’ll be voting no to this. Okay, any other speakers? Go ahead, Councillor Pribble.

Thank you. I will accept the report that was proposed by the CEO of LEDC, but having said that again, based on the citizen investment and the best of interest of half a million of Londoners, we should be receiving in any way this information, same as the half a million of Londoners. Thank you. Okay, any other speakers?

Go ahead, Councillor ramen. Thank you and through you. So on this item, I just wanna clarify again that LEDC submits audited statements annually, and that those are available to members of council, should they request them in camera? I’ll go to our staff to confirm that we have audited statements from LEDC submitted in somewhere.

Go ahead. Thank you and through your worship, that’s correct. Yes, we do receive audited statements. They go to, I believe, the DCM of planning and economic development.

Go ahead. Thank you. And so again, by way of motion, we can motion to have those available if needed, and if that was an issue for anyone that could be put forward as a motion. And otherwise, I’m discouraged by the spirit of the conversation when we’re talking about the report that was given to us.

It was a report of highlights from LEDC on their year to date and how things had went and the work that they had done. So I’m pleased by the results that I saw come to us. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Your Worship. And I just threw you, want, would like to ask our staff if they can confirm that our agreement with the LEDC is a purchase of service contract agreement with what is a private corporation and not a public entity, although we may be the sole contract that they have at the moment. It is a purchase of service contract and not, in fact, public sector employees doing this work. Go ahead.

Thank you, Worship, through you, that is correct. Thank you. Any other speakers? Okay.

Seeing none of them, we’ll open this for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 14 to one. And that completes the 15th report of SPBC.

Excellent. Thank you very much. We’re on to the 15th report of planning and environment. Committee, I’ll turn it over to the chair.

Thank you, Chair. I’ll let the chair know that I’ve had one item request to be pulled, five, which is 3.1, agenda, other than that, no other request. Any one, anything else pulled separately? Okay, I’ll let you make a motion.

So I’ll move one through four and six through nine. Okay, those are on the floor. I’m gonna make comments on one of those items myself. So I’ll turn it over to Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Worship, I’ll ask you to hold for just a moment. And I have the timer ready, so go ahead. Yes, Colley, so I didn’t join the planning committee to comment on this item, but I appreciate the comments that were made. I went back and reviewed them.

The item that I’m referring to is the redevelopment of the London Psychiatric Hospital Lands and the significant number of residential units are coming to that part of the city along Rapid Transit Corridor. Multi-phase development with lots of different types of housing, including heritage retention of some of the natural and unique features of that particular site. And I wanted to just step back and identify for colleagues that these 8,462 units mean that our council now to date this year has approved over 21,000, actually 21,572 units of development. This is on the heels of last year approving about 5,000 the year before approving about 4,000.

We’re approving a lot of units across the city and we’re doing our part to try to ensure that there are approvals in place to meet the commitments that we’ve made either through the Housing Accelerator Fund or through our commitment to the province or even some campaign promises that some of us may have made, including myself. Just so you know, if you go back to the start of this term of council, October of 2022, we’ve now approved 27,315 units of development. And so when we said we were going to say to the province that we’re going to work towards 47,000, so far between October of 2022 and today, we’re at 27,315. Now, we all know we’d like to see a lot of those permissions come to fruition and that is actively the work that we’re working on, whether that’s speeding up planning processes, whether that’s creating incentive programs, office residential conversion, opening up our parking lots, looking at CIP programs and reviewing those, working with the federal government through the Housing Accelerator Fund, or the various investments that the provincial government has made in infrastructure that allows us to open up new units in the downtown core and elsewhere.

Certainly, all hands are on deck to ensure that we’re not only approving units, but trying to bring those units to fruition. And I know Mr. Glander and I sat in this building just down the hallway and met with members of the development community to say. Lots of units are being approved.

We want to ensure they come to fruition. Let us know the barriers. Let us know how we can partner together to ensure that all of these council permissions become housing and spaces for people to live in our city. So I’m very proud of the work of this council so far.

I know we’ve got lots more to do. I know that there’s lots of things that will come through planning committee in the years to come. But as we approach the halfway mark in this term, we’re certainly doing our part in the number of approvals that we’re making through our planning committee and the leadership there. And of course, as a council as a whole, as it comes through this body here.

So I just wanted to pause. Significant development for our city and actually significantly adds to the totals that we’ve approved so far at this point through the course of this term. Thank you, Your Worship. I will return the chair to you, noting I have Councilor Pribble next on the speaker’s list.

Councilor Pribble, go ahead. Thank you, Chair. I just want to mention the 2.1 at the PAC committee. I did ask when we received the housing updates if we can have here to date actuals and then remaining month as a forecast.

And then I had the discussions with the staff. And I did what I was told that it would be really based on averages from the past. And I don’t think that would be really very truly meaningful. So my request, I thought the forecast could be potentially based on the certain actuals projections, but that’s not the case.

So I just want to let you know that in terms of the based on previous averages, it wouldn’t be really beneficial. So I don’t request that forecast anymore. Thank you. Councilor Caddy.

Thank you, Your Worship and through you. I’d like to reference 3.3 development on Webster Street. This is in my ward, an exciting project. I was at Planning Committee.

I was delighted to see this come through. This is the type of info projects that we look forward to seeing your worship in the East End. My only comment was that I had hoped that this project wouldn’t flow onto two residential streets that are cul-de-sacs. I spoke with staff.

I understand that cul-de-sacs was really meant for a through road years ago. It was hard for me to explain to the residents that their street is going to be a busy street or both Croatia and Sandra. It was out last week speaking to the residents. And I’m hoping that maybe in the future before this development is finished or started, I should say that something can be done with the residents on Webster Street that are still hoping that the developers, the applicant will buy their properties and they’ll be able to flow onto Webster Street.

But your worship, this is a type of project that we enjoy seeing in the East End and particularly in my ward. And I’m really encouraged by this, thank you. Thank you. Any other speakers on the items that the chair has put on the floor?

Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you, I’d like to put five on the floor. It’s item 3.1 regarding a report from the community advisory committee on planning.

Essentially, it was a recommendation from Heritage to take some Heritage action on this building as we decide the future of any additions, et cetera, on the way forward with our master accommodation plan. Okay, that’s on the floor by the chair. Any comments or questions from colleagues? Councillor Hopkins, go ahead.

There you worship, I asked for this to be pulled in my apologies. I was not able to view the planning committee debate and hear the verbal delegations for the considering designating city hall as a heritage building. And maybe a question for you, the staff, is what would that process look like if we were going to consider designating city hall? Just one second.

Okay, I just wanted to make sure I looked at what came through committee. So certainly relevant to the motion. So go ahead, go ahead and staff. Thank you through your worship.

As part of any application, there would be a heritage alteration permit request and there’d have to be an impact assessment done from a heritage perspective. However, that’s looked under part five of the Heritage Act in terms of the conservation district, which is in Westwood, Woodfield. There is no mechanism at this point for the part four under the Heritage Act. So it’d have to be a direction through council to make that request for an evaluation to be done to consider the interior elements from a heritage perspective.

Go ahead, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, and as a just a follow-up question, the request from the advisory group was to designate the outside though, or was it for both, or because of the changes to the Heritage Act? My apologies, I’m finding it a little bit confusing to understand the new changes. So if we aren’t, if we are saying that we’re not going to even look at it, that basically ends the conversation about any kind of designation, be it in or outside the building.

Can you just clarify for the Councillor, ‘cause I hear the question and the confusion, ‘cause there’s a conservation district, so what is protected already under the conservation district, and then what was the advisory committee, what was the advisory committee asking beyond that, which obviously committee didn’t go that direction, but if you could just articulate those two things separately, that’d be great. Thank you, through your worship. Just for clarification, under the Heritage Conservation District, it’s under part five, which is looking at the exterior of the building in terms of context of the neighborhood, the Westwood Field Neighborhood. In terms of the part four under the Heritage Act, that would be the request from committee, was to look at the interior, and elements of the interior identified, even the baffles on the walls here in the council chambers.

So those were the items that, for consideration for evaluation, under the part four of the Heritage Act. Go ahead, Councillor. Yeah, thank you for that. I’m still not convinced that we should not do that, and I won’t be supporting the recommendation coming forward.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong in considering what we have here in the building, and what we can do with it going forward. It doesn’t really stop any kind of development from happening, so I won’t be supporting the recommendation. Councillor Pribble. Thank you.

I will certainly be supporting this recommendation from the committee, and I did mention a couple of things, even though I wasn’t a member of committee, I mentioned a couple of these items, and the first one is both our current council and future council. I don’t want us and the future councils to have tight hands in any particular way, and I always, like us and future council, be fully in charge of the destiny. And I also said example, and the example I had to do was so hard to visit to all the big buildings, the hospitals, and I believe that if they weren’t classified heritage, that the transition to the, deep affordable housing would have been much faster and much cheaper, and I wish there wasn’t the case, certainly I’m not gonna put City Hall into the same perspective, so I will fully support the recommendation by the committee. Thank you.

Thank you, any other speakers? Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I’m not gonna be supporting this either. We heard from several people about the incredible valuable heritage asset that we have, that we’re Londoners are proud of, and we talk a lot about heritage, and we hold other heritage property owners to a high standard, and I think that if that’s what we believe, then we should be doing that ourselves here as well.

This wasn’t a commitment, it was the request for a report, so that council could make a decision. My understanding is that this building meets five of nine attributes, many buildings that we consider heritage only do two of nine, so why we would just dismiss this for expediency or cost savings, I think goes against what we preach about heritage and what we say, and this is from what I understand, and I’d like to learn more about the value that we have here in this heritage asset, and I think it’s worth exploring. I think it’s what Londoners expect of us, or I think we get to look at heritage, and maybe it’s not something that we support or ask our other London residents to do, maybe it’s something that we can look at at budget time to reduce some of the funds that we spend on that, so I’m interested to see how my other councilors vote, because we’re talking about whether we value heritage or not, and whether we value the attributes that the experts in our city are saying are unique and valuable and worth preserving. Councillor Layman and then Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, yeah, I have a different take. I think right now there’s a number of concerns, I have, this is a pretty significant project that we’re undertaking, you know, tens, hundreds of millions of dollars, and I don’t want to handcuff people that are putting proposals forward on what unique designs that they can bring for our consideration, or future councils consideration with restrictions. I think the workplace is evolving dramatically for people both from work and people that are coming in, and what I found is even, you know, as was mentioned, people of heritage properties cost go up once you start having to factor those things in. Now, if that doesn’t preclude designs coming forward, that may be that keep certain aspects of our current city hall, but I don’t want to handcuff them, I don’t want to see increased costs go to the taxpayer as well.

Now, I’ll give you an example, the ninth floor has been totally redone in a very modern way of providing the new work dynamic. It allows for better collaboration, different work spaces, and encourage folks is to come downtown to go to work here, quite frankly, ‘cause the space they’re operating in is very conducive and very much more enjoyable than it was, as much as I would hate to see my office of outside brick and the interior go away, I can tell you, it’s not the most pleasant area to work in. So for those reasons, I think that be prudent not to tie hands of future counselors or planners or people bring forward projects with heritage restrictions or costs ‘cause if the ninth floor had to jump through those hoops and extra permits, we might not have gotten to where we were with the cost that was spent or the time it took to go forward in that, which was exceptional. And like I mentioned, certain attributes here could well be maintained if they’re perceived value.

And those designs will be coming forward to either this counselor or future councils for us to make that call. But I don’t want to handcuff people in the future. So I will support the committee recommendation. Happy very Lewis.

Thank you, Your Worship. And I too have a different take than has been expressed by a couple of members of council. And I’m encouraging colleagues to support the committee recommendation. And I think we have to take two factors into account here.

First of all, there is no development application for this property at the moment. And when the city brings one forward, then we can consider whether or not it’s appropriate to do an additional heritage study beyond the heritage impact assessment, which would already, as we’ve heard miss immediately say, be undertaken. When the time is right, our staff are busy enough that we don’t need to be tasking them with work that might not take place for five, six, eight years. We’re a long way for making a decision in terms of a new seat of government for this council and for this municipality.

So I agree with the comments that have been made about not handcuffing and pre-determining an outcome for a future council. Because some features may be worth saving, but that doesn’t mean that the entirety of the building is worthy of heritage designation. And there may be certain pieces that we want to carry over into a new city hall or into a renovation here, but not others. And we need to leave flexibility for that in the future and for a future council’s decision.

But I also really have to take issue with the fact that it was said that we aren’t listening to the experts. First of all, advisory committees are not experts. Let’s, there may be some people with some expertise on advisory committees, but advisory committees are not meant to be expert advice to replace our staff. Nor did council ask the advisory committee to consider this.

They put it on their own work plan based on the input from one member of the public asking them to do so and bring forward this request to us. We didn’t ask for it. Advisory committees are there to advise council on council’s direction and strategic plan, not on requests from the general public. And we have said no as a council to other part four designations.

So while we, once a part four is in place, yes, we do expect the owners to uphold that part four once it’s in place. But we have said no to other part four designations that have come before planning committee and before council. So to say that it’s not valuing heritage, if we don’t proceed with this, I fundamentally disagree. Each application that comes forward is based on an evaluation criteria.

And then of a decision from council based on the situations and the individual context of each individual application. But we have to be really careful. If we’re going to start responding every time a member of the public comes to an advisory committee and asks the advisory committee to move something to council. That is not supposed to be the purpose of those bodies.

And I think we are getting on a really slippery slope. If we start doing this when one member of the public brings something to an advisory committee for them to move something forward to council. I’d suggest the colleagues really take a close look at the terms of reference for advisory committees. I think they need some work.

But they are certainly not meant to be an open door for new items to land on the council agenda. So I really encourage you to uphold the PEC report, which is to receive, and that’s all we’re doing today. It doesn’t close the door to future action. It doesn’t close the door to an evaluation of components of the heritage of this building in the future.

But there is no reason when we are so far out to task staff today with starting to do a long report, which by the time we make a decision on this building may have different provincial regulations in play at that time as well. So this simply should be received. It can be dealt with in the future. It is not a today matter.

All right, I have Councillor Trozau and then Councillor Frank. Thank you very much. And I rise through the chair to begin by thanking the advisory committee profoundly for bringing this to our attention. And in my view, yes, this is exactly what advisory committees are supposed to be doing.

And yes, they do have expertise. And yes, they are there to give the public another opportunity to play into the public, to the public process. So I really disagree with the notion that we should somehow be restricting advisory committees from looking at things like this. I think it’s commendable that they took this up.

Now, as to the merits, when I hear terms like handcuffs, increased costs, high hands, restrictions, extra permits, that’s casting a negative light on the whole idea of heritage protection. And I think that’s wrong. Because when we want a property owner to comply with heritage rules, that’s exactly what we’re asking them to do. To me, the argument that, well, we can’t ask ourselves to be held to heritage standards, ‘cause that might handcuff us or impose additional requirements.

Yes, that’s what heritage does. And there’s a reason for it. And I want to give this advisory committee the opportunity to have this played out. I am not going to support the recommendation.

And I hope that we’re in a position to be able to move forward with at least looking at this. We’re not making a decision today to grant this heritage status. We’re just not closing the door on it. To me, it’s a little bit analogous to saying, we want private property owners to maintain property standards, but not if it’s our buildings.

I mean, I just think that we have to be prepared as the city to walk the talk and not just ask other property owners to do it. So I hope we get the chance to look at this again. And again, thank you very much to the advisory committee for bringing this forward. Thank you.

Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes. I’ll be supporting the recommendation from the advisory committee. And so I just wanted to follow up and similar to council trust.

So I won’t say all the things that he said. I actually do personally like it when members of the public suggest ideas and solutions to council through the advisory committees. I think it’s an appropriate channel. I think that’s where I can have a nice debate with members of that committee.

And then it can come through our standing committees. So I think it’s absolutely the most appropriate place for that to happen. And I’ll add for the record that it was actually a member of the advisory committee that reached out to the member of the public who submitted the report and asked that she submit it. She didn’t just wake up one morning and feel like it, although I have no doubt that she probably actually would do that.

And additionally, I do feel like the members of the committee are following their terms of reference. So I guess that is a subjective thing that we have as Councillors, but I think that they are well within their ability to provide commentary on things like the heritage status of City Hall. So I appreciate other people’s perspectives, but just want to share my own. Thank you.

And that exhausts our speakers list except for Councilor Roman, who’s next. Thank you and through you. So I won’t be supporting what came out of planning as the decision at point at this point. My reason for that is I do believe that we need to look at this building and consider having a heritage assessment evaluation report, sorry, done at this point.

I believe at the point that we have an application, we could be in a position where we’re now faced with additional time constraints and therefore will be challenged to be able to do more with the building. My understanding from the discussion or that was had at the committee and that then came through in letters of support for seeing this through a heritage lens is that a lot of the buildings heritage elements are on the first floor as well as contained in this chamber. And so again, my understanding is that what we could do at this point is if we defeated this recommendation and a recommendation, which I’m prepared to put on the floor by the way, where to come forward, it could be that we undertake a heritage evaluation of City Hall as necessary input into that map process. Again, it would allow us to know what we need to know at the start of the process instead of later on.

It would allow for some, I believe, some good dialogue in the community about the significance of this building, the historical significance of it, the attributes of which the public, because it is their building, feel that they’re connected to and tied to. And I think that as we look at this project and we say that this is a new space and place for people to work, it’s also a new place for the community to seat government. And so again, I think that there’s a really good opportunity for us to have a significant discussion. And at this point, it is a discussion.

So I do think that for us to automatically assume that the costs are going to be significant or go up, I think of it more as repurposing or the opportunity to repurpose, the opportunity to make necessary evaluations of what’s already here. And I see that as valuable. So I won’t be supporting what’s put forward by the committee. Okay, that exhausts my speaker’s list.

So I’m going to open the vote, which is, just so if the vote is on the committee recommendation with the chair put on the floor. I vote no. Thank you, closing the vote motion carries nine to six. Chair.

Thank you, that concludes the 15th report. Okay, on to the 15th report of Corporate Services Committee. We’ll turn it over to the chair for that. Thank you and through the mayor, happy to do the 15th report of Corporate Service Committee.

Great discussion at committee, awesome to see that we still have AAA credit rating. The mayor spoke at length about the DC shortfall and the desire for the province to make us whole again. If you do wanna speak again, you were over time last time. So keep it brief.

But I am willing to put one through five on the floor and I had no request for anything to be pulled. Would anybody like anything to vote on separately? Seeing none, any comments then? Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you and through you. I just had a question to staff. As I was reviewing the mid-year capital budget monitoring report on page 383, there’s a project SH-1100 called daytime resting spaces for 1,100,000 scheduled for Q4 2025. And in the comments, it says delay and securing land.

I’m just not familiar with what project this is and I was wondering if I could get some information. If you’re here, your worship, I would have to double check that to make sure I know exactly what project that’s referencing. Given the uncommitted amount that’s listed in that document, but I’ll confer with our team and with Ms. Barbara Allen’s team.

Okay, go ahead, go ahead. Thank you. No, that was really my only question. The other one, and I had sent an email, my delay send delayed at right until 11 this morning.

I just wondered what beyond meant in the expected completion date column. A few of them say beyond and I just wondered what that meant. Do you have a page reference that the treasurer can just look at and then get a clear answer? It was on there several places, I think.

Let me just look. I can ask the other question I guess I had on here was, did these 2021 life-to-date capital budgets have funding attached to them on the balance sheet somewhere? And if so, where does that show up? And if not, where are the amounts expected for the 2024, 2025 items to be funded from?

Go ahead. Thank you through your worship. So the answer to the first question in terms of what’s beyond, that would mean amounts that are beyond 2030, which is the 10-year capital plan. So that is referring to much more future projections beyond that.

Go ahead. So there was just that other question about in Appendix B, the 2021 life-to-date capital budgets that have funding attached to them. Are they on the balance sheet somewhere? If so, where and if not, where are the amounts expected to be funded from for the 2024, 2025 items?

Go ahead. Thank you through the chair. So with respect to specific projects, we’ll have to go back and look at that and provide the specifics to you. But essentially, all of this approved funding would be through the multi-year capital plan.

So where the budgets are approved in the future years are not subject to final ratification until the annual update, but anything through and committed would be part of that capital project and part of our capital commitments. Okay, thank you, and through the chair. So just to clarify then that 1.1 million for the daytime resting spaces scheduled for Q4 2025 in all likelihood that funding’s already been allocated. Is there somewhere approved already?

Go ahead. Thank you through the chair. So anything for 2024 would have been part of the approval through the multi-year budget in 2024. So that would be an approved budget.

I don’t know the specifics to that. We’d have to go back and look and could provide you the specifics ‘cause there would be the project detail record that would provide more information as to what that project entails. Thanks. I brought up a specific example of it, but I meant overall and I see that big long list of projects.

This one is 2025. So I imagine it’s like scheduled out and then we will confirm that in the 2025 budget update I’m assuming. Go ahead. And thank you.

So as I identity through your worship through the multi-year capital budget, we have a 10 year projection. So through the multi-year budget, we would have approved capital and operating up until 2028. And every year through the annual update process, those amounts would be ratified. So anything that is a change would be brought forward through the annual update and reconfirmed through the budget proceedings that will begin starting at the end of the month.

Go ahead. Thank you, yeah, coming up soon. So if there’s an answer on the resting space is great, if not, I can get it after council. I don’t know if there’s an answer yet, but I know there’s a commitment to get it after.

I’ll just, after. Okay, they’re looking it up. Okay, thanks. I’ve Councillor Pribble next.

Thank you and to my colleagues, there was also the 2.3 when we talked about operating budget. And there was a report that came in terms of kind of a preliminary potential surplus. But again, it’s not going to be defined till next year. But I just want to state just for information that from one of our working committees, we did ask the staff to come back and address potential changes or proposals to the existing policy, which states where the surplus goes automatically into the certain accounts.

But the staff is going to come back before the surplus is defined next year. So therefore, we will have the opportunity to address this issue. I just want to share this with the Councillors who weren’t at the meeting. Thank you.

Any other comments on these items? Can I have you seeing none? We’ll open that for voting. I vote yes.

Thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries 15-0. Thank you, Councillor. On to the third report of the audit committee.

I’ll go to Councillor Closse. Thank you, Your Worship. I have not been given notice to pull anything separate. And I’ll look to you to that before I answer your comments.

Sure. Is there anybody would like anything separate from the audit committee? Okay. Thank you.

I will put all the items on the floor, one through five, noting that all members were present, discussions were had and votes for unanimous. Great. Any discussion on the audit committee items? Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. I did speak on this one at audit committee, but I wanted to do it again at council. In the briefing notes, so in 4.1, the briefing note from the internal audit, there is a compliance audit focused on the programming related to creating a safe London for women and girls coming up. So to the November 13th, audit committee is going to be an update on the scope of that.

And then there’s going to be a follow up one after. So the overall objective of the review will focus on the city’s progress towards the execution of its creating a safe London for women and girls initiative. So I spoke about this one at audit committee and I talked about it at my community meeting. This was not an issue that I ran on.

It was not something that was on my radar prior to getting elected, but it is now. It’s really an important issue to me. I’m the one who asked this to be moved up from 2025 to 2024. And I did so at the time when there was a public debate happening about the services that we were providing for the homeless addicted women who are offering sexual services as a survival tactic.

And it came to a head when safe space came onto Dundas Street East. And I had residents who were concerned. And then there were a lot of concerns about that service. And I’ve talked about it numerous times here.

It also resulted in all of the women’s agencies coming out and making a complaint against me, which was dismissed by the integrity commissioner. And so there’s a public debate happening right now about what is it that we’re doing? How can we best support and what can we do to create a safer London for women and girls? So my concerns are around the taxpayer funding of organizations that support and empower women in their sex work knowing that the purchase of sex work is illegal, that was confirmed last fall.

We had the death of Cheryl Sheldon in the news. People are very concerned about what happened there. There are safety concerns expressed by female tenants. I get numerous emails from landlords who say that their tenants love their apartment in Old East Village, but they do not feel safe going to and from their car, walking their dog, going to a local store.

There was my experience recently and I shared it in brief at the audit committee, but I had a homeless woman sleeping on my back deck when I asked her how I could help her. She said she was from Toronto and she’d been trafficked. I called the human trafficking line. They put me in touch with a shelter.

They put me in touch with London Cares for Outreach. I was unable to get that woman support. I fed her breakfast, I gave her protein bars, I let her sleep longer. I tried to get her there and I was not able to do it.

This is a population that we say we are fully committed to and I was unable to support that woman in that day. She did not get support that she needed. There was a woman interviewed by news outlet that stated she’d been paired with a man she didn’t know in one of our shelters and been evicted for complaining about it. Congratulations.

Yes, with all due respect, I realize the council is sharing some context, but I’m not sure how this is germane to the item before us on the audit committee. So if we could perhaps bring it back to the audit agenda that we’re here to approve? Yes, so I was allowing the councilor to share some of this information at our committee, but I would just ask the councilor to get to the point of the audit item that is before us and you’ve got a minute and 14 seconds left. Okay, thank you.

So the point is a lot of people don’t pay attention to the audit committee. It’s not as exciting to everyone as it is to me. Now this particular one, I think should be an interest to people. I want the public to pay attention to what comes forward at the next audit committee and then what the results are.

And I want them to really pay attention to what is it that we’re doing well in the city and what is it that we’re not doing well when it comes to the safety of women? There are so many concerns, so many concerns. We are not a safe city for women and girls and we need to be and we’re committed to be and I know that this council is. So I’m asking people to pay attention to the audit committee, go and look at the video, go and look at the report and see what is coming next.

There’s lots to discuss and I’d like the public involved. Okay, I don’t have any other speakers for the audit committee report, which is all the items. Okay, we’re gonna open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

That concludes the third report of the audit committee. Thank you, we have added reports, the 16th report of council in closed session, vast councilor McAllister, if you present that report. Go ahead, councilor. It’s not as long as it has been, so happy to do this.

16th report of the council in closed session. 4.9, settlement agreement, 6.71 street, East London link project phase four. That is procedural matter pursuant to section 239, subsection 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 the 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 6.70, 1st street further described as part watt 69, plan 19 designated parts one and two, plan 33R-6177 designated as parts 22, 23 and 24, plan 33R-21, 810 in the city of London being part of pin 08107-001, as shown on the location map, 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 from 829, 827, or 872, sorry. Ontario limited to settle the compensation to the property owner for the total sum of 11,000, subject to the terms and condition as set out in the agreement as appendix CB accepted and subject to the following conditions. I, the city agreeing to remove the tree along Oxford street by December 31st, 2824 to facilitate sign relocation.

I, I, the owner agreeing to remove the signage by March 31st, 2025, following the tree removal, the city agreeing to pay the owner’s costs for the sign removal and potential relocation up to 15,000 upon receipt of professional invoicing. The owner is responsible for obtaining necessary permits for signage at the new location and B, the financing for this acquisition B approved as set out in the source of financing here to as appendix A and that progress was made with respect to items 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.10, as noted in the public agenda. Do you want me to read out the agenda items at the end? Thank you.

That’s good. All right. Got it. So that’s, that’s presented on the floor by the, by Councilor McAllister.

If you could just stay standing, Councilor, while we take a vote on that. Is there any discussion on this? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Wasn’t the vote motion carries 15 to zero.

Great, thanks Councilor. There are no deferred matters inquiries. I have one request for an inquiry. I’ll go to Councilor Stevenson.

Yes, thank you. I just wanted to ask we had our first office conversion rental that we were all excited about downtown at 166 Dundas Street. We were anticipating a fall occupancy. It was a $400,000 investment.

And I just wondered if there was an update as to when occupancy might happen and if there were any challenges encountered in this first one? Sure, we can get an answer to that. I’ll go to our staff. Through his worship to the Councilor.

The timing of the projects is not known to the building department. I can confirm that there is an agreement under the CIP residential program. The first loan has been administered and inspections were having a called for and conducted. As to the actual occupancy date, we are unaware of the time at this point in time.

Thank you. Thank you. Are there any problems that you’re aware of in terms of delays or? No, I’ll let you answer one more, but inquiries are usually ask a question, get an answer and debate is more for committee, but I’ll let one follow up, go ahead and we’ll go.

Through his worship to the Councilor, there is no delays that we’re aware of at this time. All right, thank you. Any other inquiries? Seeing none, emergent motions, I have none.

Bylaws, we’re on to bylaws, so just give me one second. So have anything separate except for the added bill, which was related to the settlement agreement on a rapid transit project. So we’ll deal with that separate at the request of one Councilor. Everything else is currently together unless someone would like something separate.

Everything together except for the added one, the Councilor and Councilor presented. Okay, so we’ll deal with everything except the added one first, all together. Looks like everybody’s good. I’m gonna do what I tried last time and this whoever moves and seconds it gets to do that all three times.

So we’ll have Councilor Hopkins moved and Councilor Ferrer second. And with that moved and second it will open first reading of everything except the added bylaw. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, and same mover and secondary for second reading.

Any debate or discussion on any of these in second reading? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting two. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. And third reading, same mover and seconder.

I’ll open that as soon as it’s ready. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, and we’ll move on to the item that came out of closed session, which is the settlement agreement for first street on the East London length project. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for that particular one, Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Deputy Ray Lewis.

You guys will be the mover and seconder on all three. Okay, see nods. So we’ll open the first reading for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

Okay, and we’ll do second reading. Same mover and seconder. Look for any discussion on second reading. That’ll open as soon as it’s ready.

Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to one. And third, we’re in the same mover and seconder. We’ll open the third reading for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

Okay, and that only leaves us with motion to adjourn. I have Councilor Ferrer willing to move, and seconded by Councilor Stevenson. We’ll do that one by hand. All those in favor of adjournment.

Any opposed? Got motion to turn. Okay, thank you, we’re adjourned.