November 5, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:04 PM; it being noted that Councillors P. Van Meerbergen and S. Hillier were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that Councillor P. Cuddy disclosed a pecuniary interest in item 11, clause 3.4 of the 16th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee having to with 313-323 Horton Street East by indicating he owns property at 359-371 Horton Street East.

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 J. Pribil

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

4.1 Litigation/Potential Litigation/Solicitor-Client Privilege/Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction for Negotiation Purposes 

A matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation, affecting the municipality; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose and directions and instructions to officers and employees or agents of the municipality; 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 or local board. (6.1/14/CWC)

4.2 Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations

A matter pertaining to personnel, labour relations and potential employee negotiations in regard to the Corporation’s association or unions, advice and recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation including communications necessary for that purpose. (6.1/16/SPPC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.1/16/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending License of City-owned lands, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.2/16/CSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the disposition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.3/16/CSC)

4.6 Land Acquisition/Disposition/Solicitor-Client Privilege/Trade Secret, Scientific, Technical, Commercial, Financial Information of the Corporation with Monetary Value/Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction for Negotiation

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending lease 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. (6.1/13/CPSC)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

That Council convenes In Closed Session, from 1:18 PM to 1:40 PM.

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

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the Minutes of the 16th Meeting of the Municipal Council, held on October 15, 2024, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

6.4    Quick Communities Motion 

(Refer to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee Stage for Consideration with Item #5 (4.2) of the 16th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee)

  1. C. Linton

6.5 A. Badillo, Urban Roots London 

(Refer to the Planning and Environment Committee Stage for Consideration with Item #17 (5.2) of the 16th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee)

  1. Councillor H. McAlister

6.6 (ADDED) Life*Spin - Property Standards and Tenant Support

(Refer to the Community and Protective Services Committee Stage for Consideration with Item #6 (3.1) of the 13th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committe)

  1. (ADDED) K. Pagniello, Neighbourhood Legal Servies

  2. (ADDED) P. Chisholm and C. Grantham, London and Middlesex Community Housing

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.4   Quick Communities Motion

6.4.1   C. Linton

C. Linton(1)

6.5   A. Badillo, Urban Roots London

6.5.1   Councillor H. McAlister

Motion to PEC for Urban Roots Severance

6.6   (ADDED) Life*Spin - Property Standards and Tenant Support

CAPS Motions Support Letter(1)

6.6.2   (ADDED) P. Chisholm and C. Grantham, London and Middlesex Community Housing

2024-11-05 (3.1)

6.1   Expropriation of Lands - East London Link Project - Phase 4 (As the “Approving Authority”)

RT - Expropriation East London Link Project - Phase 4 - Approval Report 2 of 3_Council_November 5, 2024

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That Council convene as the Approving Authority pursuant to the provisions of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E.26, as amended, for the purpose of considering Communication No. 1 from the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure with respect to the expropriation of the lands as may be required for the Project known as the East London Link Project – Phase 4.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Trosow

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the expropriation of lands as may be required for the project known as the East London Link Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Council of The Corporation of the City of London as Approving Authority pursuant to the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, as amended, HEREBY APPROVES the proposed expropriation of lands, as described in Schedule “A” as appended to the staff report dated November 5, 2024, in the City of London, County of Middlesex, it being noted that the reasons for making this decision are as follows:

i)    the subject lands are required by The Corporation of the City of London for the East London Link Project;

ii)    the design of the project will address the current and future transportation demands along the corridor;

iii)    the design is in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study recommendations for the East London Link Project approved by Municipal Council at the meeting held on May 21, 2019,

b)    subject to the approval of (a) above, a certificate of approval BE ISSUED by the City Clerk on behalf of the Approving Authority in the prescribed form; and

c)    it being noted that a request for a Hearing of Necessity in relation to Parts 9, 10, and 11, Plan 33R-21810 was received and a hearing was conducted on September 13, 2024, the findings and opinion of the Inquiry Officer are appended to the staff report as Appendix “B”.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the meeting of the Approving Authority BE ADJOURNED and that Council reconvene in regular session.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.2   Expropriation of Lands - East London Link Project - Phase 4 (As the “Expropriating Authority”) (Relates to Bill No. 362)

RT - Expropriation East London Link Project Phase 4- Approval Report 3 of 3_Council_November 5, 2024

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the expropriation of lands as may be required for the project known as the East London Link Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated November 5, 2024 as Appendix “A” being “A by-law to expropriate lands in the City of London, in the County of Middlesex, the East London Link Project BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 5, 2024;

 

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take all necessary steps to prepare a plan or plans showing the Expropriated Lands and to register such plan or plans in the appropriate registry or land titles office, pursuant to the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, within three (3) months of the Approving Authority granting approval of the said expropriation;

c)    the Mayor and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to sign on behalf of the Expropriating Authority, the plan or plans as signed by an Ontario Land Surveyor showing the Expropriated Lands; and

d)    the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED to execute and serve the notices of expropriation required by the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26 and such notices of possession that may be required to obtain possession of the Expropriated Lands.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

6.3   Ombudsman Report – Closed Meeting Complaint

Ombudsman Ontario-London-October 2024-Letter

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the report from the Ontario Ombudsman dated October 24, 2024 with respect to a complaint about a closed meeting of Council held on April 2, 2024 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   14th Report of the Civic Works Committee

2024-10-22 - CWC Report (002)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That the 14th Report of the Civic Works Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) SS-2024-289 Single Source Procurement of Fleet Equipment from a Group Procurement Organization

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated October 22, 2024, related to a Single Source Procurement of Fleet Equipment from a Group Procurement Organizations:

a) approval BE GIVEN to execute Single Source purchases in accordance with Section 14.4(g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b) the single source negotiated pricing with Supply Ontario BE ACCEPTED to purchase twelve cargo vans and one pickup truck for a total estimated price of $743,384.00 (excluding HST) from Highbury Ford Sales Ltd in London;

c) the single source negotiated pricing with Canoe BE ACCEPTED to purchase seven tandem dump trucks with snowplows for a total estimated price of $2,475,625.00 (excluding HST) from Carrier Truck Centers in London;

d) the single source negotiated pricing with Canoe BE ACCEPTED to purchase three compressed natural gas front end loading garbage trucks for a total estimated price of $1,818,696.00 (excluding HST) from Vision Truck Group in Cambridge;

e) the single source negotiated pricing with Canoe BE ACCEPTED to purchase two golf triplex trim mowers and three pull behind debris blowers for a total estimated price of $195,610.00 (excluding HST) from Turf Care Products Ltd. in St. Marys;

f) the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with these purchases;

g) the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or having a purchase order, or contract record relating to the subject matter of this approval in accordance with Section 14.4(g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy; and,

h) the financing for this purchase BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) Water Service Area Financial Plan Update

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, and the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, as appended to the staff report dated October 22, 2024, the updated Water Service Area Financial Plan for the City of London BE APPROVED as per the requirements of O. Reg 453/07 of the Safe Drinking Water Act; it being noted that this financial plan is consistent with Council approved financial policies and the adopted 2024-2027 Water Multi-Year Budget.

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.3) RFP 2024-039 Culvert Replacement Program Detailed Design and Tendering Appointment of Consulting Engineer

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated October 22, 2024, related to the Appointment of a Consulting Engineer for the Detailed Design and Tendering of the Culvert Replacement Program:

a) the proposal submitted by EXP Services Inc. BE ACCEPTED to provide consulting engineering services to complete the detailed design and tendering at an upset amount of $517,545.00 (excluding HST), as per Section 15.2 (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.4) Mobility Master Plan Phase 2 Update

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure the staff report dated October 22, 2024, related to the Mobility Master Plan Phase 2 Update BE RECEIVEVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.5) Emergency Repair of Access Road Over the Marr Drain

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 22, 2024, related to the Emergency Repair of Access Road over the Marr Drain:

a) the purchase order issued to R.A. Walker Construction Ltd. under Section 14.2 of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy at a total cost of $65,285.71 (excluding HST), BE CONFIRMED;

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

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

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (3.2) Reassessment of the CB Smith No. 2 Municipal Drain (Relates to Bill No. 379)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated October 22, 2024, related to the Reassessment of the CB Smith No. 2 Municipal Drain:

a) the drainage report, as appended to the above-noted staff report, prepared by Spriet Associates London Ltd, Consulting Engineers for the for the re-assessment of the CB Smith No. 2 Municipal Drain (2024) BE ADOPTED; it being noted the notice of the public meeting was provided in accordance with Section 41 of the Drainage Act; and,

b) the proposed by-law as appended on the above-noted staff report BE INTRODUCED and be given two readings at the Municipal Council meeting held on November 5, 2024, to authorize the construction of the CB Smith No. 2 Municipal Drain project; it being noted that the third reading of the by-law for enactment would occur at the Municipal Council meeting held after the holding of the Court of Revision in connection to the project.

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (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 10th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee (ESACAC), from the meeting held on October 2, 2024:

a) the Design Specifications and Requirements Manual Working Group additional comments as appended to the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee (ESACAC) Added Agenda BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration; it being noted that the ESACAC heard verbal delegations from P. Kavcic, Manager, Subdivisions and Development Inspections and M. Davenport, Manager, Manager, Development Engineering and Digital Planning Initiatives, with respect to this matter;

b) clauses 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.2, 5.1 and 5.2 BE RECEIEVED.

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

Motion Passed

8.2   16th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2024-10-29 SPPC Report 16

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 16th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of items 4 (4.1), 6 (4.3) and 8 (4.5)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) Special Meeting of the Shareholder of the Housing Development Corporation, London to Authorize the Dissolution of the Housing Development Corporation, London (Relates to Bill No. 356)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated October 29, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 5, 2024 to:

i)    ratify and confirm the special resolution of the sole shareholder of the Housing Development Corporation, London to authorize the dissolution of Housing Development Corporation, London and as incidental to the dissolution, authorize the distribution of the property of the Housing Development Corporation, London to the City of London;

ii)    authorize the General Conveyance Agreement between Housing Development Corporation, London and The Corporation of the City of London (the “General Conveyance Agreement”); and

iii)    authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute the General Conveyance Agreement;

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED to execute and perform all acts, documents and instruments necessary or desirable to give full force and effect to the dissolution of the Housing Development Corporation, London and the transfer of real property of the Housing Development Corporation, London to The Corporation of the City of London;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake all administrative actions required to support the transfer of real property from the Housing Development Corporation, London to the City of London;

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring a source of financing, if necessary, directly to Council for approval if a land transfer tax will be applicable to the transfer of Housing Development Corporation’s properties to the City; and

e)    the report BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) Initiation of the Downtown Master Plan Project

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the development of the Downtown Master Plan:

a)    the Downtown Master Plan - Terms of Reference BE APPROVED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to initiate a procurement process to engage a consultant to undertake a Downtown Master Plan; and

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back in Q1 2025 with a series of quick start actions based on the feedback received to date;

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

  •    D. Doward, London Downtown Condominium Advocacy Group;

  •    M. Fitzgerald;

  •    B. Maly, Executive Director, Downtown London and S. A. Collyer, LDBA Board Chair;

  •    A. Carapella, Tricar;

  •    M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute (LDI);

  •    B. Madder, CEO, London and St. Thomas Association of REALTORS;

  •    P. McIntyre, President, Board of Directors, MCC #87 and R. J. Fox, President, Board of Directors, MCC #173;

  •    A. Soufan, President, York Developments;

  •    H. D. Chapman, Member of the London Downtown Condominium Advocacy Group; and

  •    B. Maly, Executive Director, Downtown London and S. A. Collyer, LDBA Board Chair;

it being further noted the request for delegation dated October 27, 2024, from B. Maly, Executive Director, Downtown London was referred to the meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee with the report back in Q1 2025 from the Civic Administration on the series of quick start actions.

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (4.2) Quick Communities Motion

Motion made by S. Lewis

That correspondence from Councillor S. Franke and Councillor J. Pribil regarding the feasibility of a quick community with small housing structures such as sprung shelters, tiny homes etc. BE REFERRED to the Customer Service and Process Improvements Reference Group to receive feedback from community partners in the development, construction, and real estate industry;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a revised communication from Councillor S. Franke and Councillor J. Pribil with respect to this matter and communications from the following individuals:

  •    J. Zaifman, CEO, London Home Builders’ Association; and

  •    M. Carter, CEO, London & District Construction Association (LDCA).

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (4.4) 10th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 9th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee from its meeting held on October 10, 2024:

a)      the following actions be taken with respect to the 2024 Diversity, Race Relations and Inclusivity Awards (DRRIA):

i)     the Needham Funeral Services BE AWARDED the 2024 Diversity, Race Relations and Inclusivity Award, in the Small Business/ Small Labour (49 or fewer employees/members) category; 

ii)     the London Afro Centric Association (LACA) BE AWARDED the 2024 Diversity, Race Relations and Inclusivity Award, in the Social/Community Services (including Not-for Profits) (49 or fewer employees/members) category; 

iii)     the Black Health, London Health Sciences Centre BE AWARDED the 2024 Diversity, Race Relations and Inclusivity Award, in the Social/Community Services (including Not-for Profits) (50 or more employees/members) category;

it being noted that the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee held a general discussion relating to the nominations;

b)      clauses 1.1, 2.1, 2.2 and 4.1 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.9   (5.1) 2025 Calendar Amendment Motion

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a by-law to a future meeting of Municipal Council to amend the Council Procedure By-law to adjust the Annual Schedule of Meetings, effective 2025 and on an ongoing basis, by incorporating a meeting-free “Constituency Week” in both April and May. It being noted that this will be achieved by rescheduling the meetings of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee (ICSC) and the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee (SPPC) to the preceding week in those months;

it being further noted that a meeting-free week is currently provided for in March, and two consecutive meeting-free weeks are accommodated in July and August;

it being pointed out that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated October 24, 2024 from Deputy Mayor S. Lewis and Councillor P. Cuddy with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (4.1) Whole of Community System Response – Community Encampment Plan: Implementation Recommendations 2025 and Basic Needs Update

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken regarding Whole of Community System Response – Community Encampment Plan: Implementation Recommendations 2025 and Basic Needs Update:

a)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to reallocate up to $99,700 from the surplus 2024 Housing Stability Services funding to fund the basic needs provision for a period of November 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024;

b)     the Civic Administration and the Mayor BE REQUESTED to engage with the federal and provincial governments to fund the Encampment Implementation Recommendations for an initial period of January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025 as part of London’s portion of a $250-million federal fund dedicated to addressing encampments;

c)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to seek out and apply for additional sources of funding to offset any municipal funding;

d)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back in mid-2025 on plans and recommended funding sources for 2026 and beyond;

e)     the following actions BE TAKEN with respect to additional service depot location(s):

i) the establishment of future service depot locations include a community meeting, which will include city staff, service support agencies, and the councillor(s) for the impacted area. It being noted that a presentation describing the depots and the rules in place will be included

ii) a notice will be circulated to impacted residents within a 120 metre radius from the location of a future service depot; and

iii) future service depot locations be deferred for consideration at the November 19, 2024 meeting of Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee and that Civic Administration bring forward a new list of possible locations (with a buffer of 50 to 100 metres) more evenly dispersed across the city as well as alternative locations that do not concentrate service depots in one ward;

f)      the Interim Housing Assistance Plan Update, 2024-2025 Cold Weather response plan update, application for the $250M of federal funding for encampments update and the public washroom facilities availability update BE RECEIVED;

g)     continuation of contracted services at the Canadian Mental Health Association Thames Valley Addictions Mental Health Services (CMHA-TVAMHS) related to their previously approved Cold Weather Response by reallocating remaining operational surplus to maintain services at The Coffee House located at 371 Hamilton Road from December 1, 2024 to May 31, 2025 BE APPROVED;

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

i)     approval given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation of the City of London entering into new and/or amending existing Purchase of Service Agreements with agencies identified through the City’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy to deliver the approved services;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a presentation from G. Nash, Director - Program Development and Complex Urban Health, London InterCommunity Health Centre and C. McDonald, Director of Services - London Cares with respect to this matter;

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

  •    B. Fuhrman;

  •    C. Watson, W. Thomas, D. Brown, Coordinators, Midtown Community Organization;

  •    L. Grushka;

  •    D. Boyce;

  •    G. Maniago;

  •    D. Del net;

  •    E. Estabrooks;

  •    C. Forster;

  •    A. Kytka;

  •    P. Gallien;

  •    D. Page;

  •    N. Bangsboll;

  •    K. Miller;

  •    A. Medina;

  •    SusiQ;

  •    A. Keet;

  •    P. Bestall;

  •    R. Kadar;

  •    S. Boyd;

  •    P. Larsen;

  •    C. Crncich;

  •    P. Matthews; 

  •    J. Stuifbergen;

  •    C. Chaarani; 

  •    D. Hinschberger;

  •    D. Annis;

  •    C. Vetere;

  •    R. Richmond;

  •    D. Conley;

  •    D. Boudreau, Breakpoint Communities;

  •    R. Van Gelderen;

  •    J. Herb;

  •    J. Ross; and

  •    D. Devine;

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

  •    R. Van Gelderen;

  •    J. Herb;

  •    J. Ross; and

  •    D. Devine.

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That parts b) and d) of the motion be amended to read as follows:

b) the Civic Administration and the Mayor BE REQUESTED to engage with the Federal and Provincial governments to fund additional overnight spaces, rent supplements and transactional encampment services as outlined in the report dated October 29, 2024, for a two-year period as a part of London’s portion of a $250-million Federal fund dedicated to individuals living in encampments or those experiencing homelessness;

d) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to engage with contracted agencies on a plan that fits the Federal encampment funding requirements and report back to Municipal Council on the submission for the two-year period and beyond;

At 2:20 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor S. Lehman in the Chair. 

At 2:22 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

b) the Civic Administration and the Mayor BE REQUESTED to engage with the Federal and Provincial governments to fund additional overnight spaces (that are not located on the main street of any BIA), rent supplements and transactional encampment services as outlined in the report dated October 29, 2024, for a two-year period as a part of London’s portion of a $250-million Federal fund dedicated to individuals living in encampments or those experiencing homelessness;

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That the motion to amend part d) be further amended to read as follows:

d) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to engage with contracted agencies, time permitting, on a plan that fits the Federal encampment funding requirements and report back to Municipal Council on the submission for the two-year period and beyond;

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

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

b) the Civic Administration and the Mayor BE REQUESTED to engage with the Federal and Provincial governments to fund additional overnight spaces, rent supplements and transactional encampment services as outlined in the report dated October 29, 2024, for a two-year period as a part of London’s portion of a $250-million Federal fund dedicated to individuals living in encampments or those experiencing homelessness;

Motion Failed (3 to 12)

At 2:58 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor S. Lehman in the Chair. 

At 2:59 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That parts b) and d) of the motion, as amended, be further amended to read as follows:

b) the Civic Administration and the Mayor BE REQUESTED to engage with the Federal and Provincial governments to fund additional overnight spaces, rent supplements and transactional encampment services as outlined in the report dated October 29, 2024, for a two-year period as a part of London’s portion of a $250-million Federal fund dedicated to individuals living in encampments or those experiencing homelessness;

d) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to engage with contracted agencies, time permitting, on a plan that fits the Federal encampment funding requirements and report back to Municipal Council on the submission for the two-year period and beyond;

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by Mayor J. Morgan

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the motion be amended to add a new part be further amended to read as follows:

j)  resting spaces to NOT BE LOCATED on the main street of any Business Improvement Area (BIA) without the approval of Municipal Council.

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

At 3:25 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor S. Lehman in the Chair. 

At 3:33 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the motion be amended to add a new part to read as follows:

j)   resting spaces to NOT BE LOCATED on the main street of any Business Improvement Area (BIA);

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That pursuant to section 9.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, Councillor D. Ferreira BE PERMITTED to speak an additional 5 minutes with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the motion be amended by adding a new part k) to read as follows:

k) Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back with respect to the setback requirements from any private residential property line in the Community Encampment Response Plan with the following criteria included:

i) an analysis of available geographic areas in the City, with a focus on potential setback distances of encampments from residential property lines, specifically: 25 metres, 50 metres, and 100 metres;

ii) an assessment of the remaining available space in each geographic area after applying the setback distances listed in i) above; and

iii) a ward-by-ward impact analysis indicating which wards would be affected or unaffected by each setback distance.

Motion Failed (4 to 11)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That part j) of the motion BE APPROVED:

j)  resting spaces to NOT BE LOCATED on the main street of any Business Improvement Area (BIA);

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That parts a) through i) of the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a presentation from G. Nash, Director - Program Development and Complex Urban Health, London InterCommunity Health Centre and C. McDonald, Director of Services - London Cares with respect to this matter;

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

  •    B. Fuhrman;

  •    C. Watson, W. Thomas, D. Brown, Coordinators, Midtown Community Organization;

  •    L. Grushka;

  •    D. Boyce;

  •    G. Maniago;

  •    D. Del net;

  •    E. Estabrooks;

  •    C. Forster;

  •    A. Kytka;

  •    P. Gallien;

  •    D. Page;

  •    N. Bangsboll;

  •    K. Miller;

  •    A. Medina;

  •    SusiQ;

  •    A. Keet;

  •    P. Bestall;

  •    R. Kadar;

  •    S. Boyd;

  •    P. Larsen;

  •    C. Crncich;

  •    P. Matthews; 

  •    J. Stuifbergen;

  •    C. Chaarani; 

  •    D. Hinschberger;

  •    D. Annis;

  •    C. Vetere;

  •    R. Richmond;

  •    D. Conley;

  •    D. Boudreau, Breakpoint Communities;

  •    R. Van Gelderen;

  •    J. Herb;

  •    J. Ross; and

  •    D. Devine;

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

  •    R. Van Gelderen;

  •    J. Herb;

  •    J. Ross; and

  •    D. Devine.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 4, clause 4.1, as amended reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken regarding Whole of Community System Response – Community Encampment Plan: Implementation Recommendations 2025 and Basic Needs Update:

a)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to reallocate up to $99,700 from the surplus 2024 Housing Stability Services funding to fund the basic needs provision for a period of November 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024;

b)     the Civic Administration and the Mayor BE REQUESTED to engage with the Federal and Provincial governments to fund additional overnight spaces, rent supplements and transactional encampment services as outlined in the report dated October 29, 2024, for a two-year period as a part of London’s portion of a $250-million Federal fund dedicated to individuals living in encampments or those experiencing homelessness;

c)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to seek out and apply for additional sources of funding to offset any municipal funding;

d)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to engage with contracted agencies, time permitting, on a plan that fits the Federal encampment funding requirements and report back to Municipal Council on the submission for the two-year period and beyond;

e)     the following actions BE TAKEN with respect to additional service depot location(s):

i) the establishment of future service depot locations include a community meeting, which will include city staff, service support agencies, and the councillor(s) for the impacted area. It being noted that a presentation describing the depots and the rules in place will be included

ii) a notice will be circulated to impacted residents within a 120 metre radius from the location of a future service depot; and

iii) future service depot locations be deferred for consideration at the November 19, 2024 meeting of Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee and that Civic Administration bring forward a new list of possible locations (with a buffer of 50 to 100 metres) more evenly dispersed across the city as well as alternative locations that do not concentrate service depots in one ward;

f)      the Interim Housing Assistance Plan Update, 2024-2025 Cold Weather response plan update, application for the $250M of federal funding for encampments update and the public washroom facilities availability update BE RECEIVED;

g)     continuation of contracted services at the Canadian Mental Health Association Thames Valley Addictions Mental Health Services (CMHA-TVAMHS) related to their previously approved Cold Weather Response by reallocating remaining operational surplus to maintain services at The Coffee House located at 371 Hamilton Road from December 1, 2024 to May 31, 2025 BE APPROVED;

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

i)     approval given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation of the City of London entering into new and/or amending existing Purchase of Service Agreements with agencies identified through the City’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy to deliver the approved services; and

j)    resting spaces to NOT BE LOCATED on the main street of any Business Improvement Area (BIA)

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a presentation from G. Nash, Director - Program Development and Complex Urban Health, London InterCommunity Health Centre and C. McDonald, Director of Services - London Cares with respect to this matter;

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

  •    B. Fuhrman;

  •    C. Watson, W. Thomas, D. Brown, Coordinators, Midtown Community Organization;

  •    L. Grushka;

  •    D. Boyce;

  •    G. Maniago;

  •    D. Del net;

  •    E. Estabrooks;

  •    C. Forster;

  •    A. Kytka;

  •    P. Gallien;

  •    D. Page;

  •    N. Bangsboll;

  •    K. Miller;

  •    A. Medina;

  •    SusiQ;

  •    A. Keet;

  •    P. Bestall;

  •    R. Kadar;

  •    S. Boyd;

  •    P. Larsen;

  •    C. Crncich;

  •    P. Matthews; 

  •    J. Stuifbergen;

  •    C. Chaarani; 

  •    D. Hinschberger;

  •    D. Annis;

  •    C. Vetere;

  •    R. Richmond;

  •    D. Conley;

  •    D. Boudreau, Breakpoint Communities;

  •    R. Van Gelderen;

  •    J. Herb;

  •    J. Ross; and

  •    D. Devine;

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

  •    R. Van Gelderen;

  •    J. Herb;

  •    J. Ross; and

  •    D. Devine.

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the Council recess at this time, for 20 minutes.

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 4:14 PM and reconvenes at 4:35 PM.

8.2.6   (4.3) Agencies, Boards and Commissions Motion

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED a communication dated October 16, 2024 from Councillor S. Franke and Councillor C. Rahman was received with respect to this matter;

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

  •    L. Bikos, Assistant Professor, King’s University College;

  •    R. Skinner;

  •    B. Couto; and

  •    T. Devlin.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

8.2.8   (4.5) Committee Appointment Preferences Submitted by Council Members

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following appointments BE MADE to the Standing Committees of the Municipal Council for the term December 1, 2024 to November 30, 2025:

a)      Planning and Environment Committee

Councillor P. Cuddy

Councillor E. Peloza

Councillor S. Hillier

b)      Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee

Councillor J. Pribil

Councillor A. Hopkins

Councillor P. Van Meerbergen

c)    Community and Protective Services Committee

Councillor

Councillor

Councillor

That the Community and Protective Services Committee member appointment process BE REFERRED to the November 5, 2024 meeting of Municipal Council;

it being noted that the following Council Members were appointed as Chair and Vice Chair by Mayoral Decision 2024-011:

Councillor S. Lehman as Chair and Deputy Mayor S. Lewis as Vice Chair - Planning and Environment Committee

Councillor C. Rahman as Chair and Councillor S. Franke as Vice Chair - Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee

Councillor D. Ferreira as Chair and Councillor H. McAlister as Vice Chair - Community and Protective Services Committee.

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following appointments BE MADE to the Standing Committees of the Municipal Council for the term December 1, 2024 to November 30, 2025:

a)      Planning and Environment Committee

Councillor P. Cuddy

Councillor E. Peloza

Councillor S. Hillier

b)      Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee

Councillor J. Pribil

Councillor A. Hopkins

Councillor P. Van Meerbergen

it being noted that the following Council Members were appointed as Chair and Vice Chair by Mayoral Decision 2024-011:

Councillor S. Lehman as Chair and Deputy Mayor S. Lewis as Vice Chair - Planning and Environment Committee

Councillor C. Rahman as Chair and Councillor S. Franke as Vice Chair - Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee

Councillor D. Ferreira as Chair and Councillor H. McAlister as Vice Chair - Community and Protective Services Committee.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

At 4:42 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor S. Lehman in the Chair. 

At 4:53 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by Mayor J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the appointments to the Community and Protective Services Committee for the term December 1, 2024 to November 30, 2025 BE REFERRED to a future meeting of Municipal Council meeting for consideration and the pending issuance of a Mayoral Decision to reduce the committee size.

it being noted that Councillor D. Ferreira was appointed Chair and Councillor H. McAlister was appointed Vice Chair to the Community and Protective Services Committee by Mayoral Decision 2024-011

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 8, clause 4.5, as amended reads as follows:

That the following appointments BE MADE to the Standing Committees of the Municipal Council for the term December 1, 2024 to November 30, 2025:

a)      Planning and Environment Committee

Councillor P. Cuddy

Councillor E. Peloza

Councillor S. Hillier

b)      Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee

Councillor J. Pribil

Councillor A. Hopkins

Councillor P. Van Meerbergen

That the appointments to the Community and Protective Services Committee for the term December 1, 2024 to November 30, 2025 BE REFERRED to a future meeting of Municipal Council meeting for consideration and the pending issuance of a Mayoral Decision to reduce the committee size.

it being noted that the following Council Members were appointed as Chair and Vice Chair by Mayoral Decision 2024-011:

Councillor S. Lehman as Chair and Deputy Mayor S. Lewis as Vice Chair - Planning and Environment Committee

Councillor C. Rahman as Chair and Councillor S. Franke as Vice Chair - Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee

Councillor D. Ferreira as Chair and Councillor H. McAlister as Vice Chair - Community and Protective Services Committee.

8.3   16th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2024-10-22 PEC Report - FULL

At 4:54 Deputy Mayor S. Lewis leaves the meeting.

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 16th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of item 11 (3.4)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) 10th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 10th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on October 9, 2024, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) Quarterly Heritage Report

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the staff report dated October 22, 2024 entitled “Quarterly Heritage Report - Q3 2024” BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.3) Building Division Detailed Update: 2024 Year-To-Date

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the amended staff report dated October 22, 2024 entitled “Building Division Detailed Update: 2024 Year-To-Date” BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.4) Development Pipeline - Developer of Lands within Open Site Plans, Open Condominium Plans, and Registered and Reference Plans (Subdivisions)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the staff report dated October 22, 2024 entitled “Development Pipeline - Developer of Lands within Open Site Plans, Open Condominium Plans, and Registered and Reference Plan (Subdivisions)” BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (2.5) Dundas Streetscape Master Plan for the Argyle Core Area

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager of Environment and Infrastructure and Deputy City Manager of Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Dundas Streetscape Master Plan for the Argyle Core Area:

a)    the Dundas Streetscape Master Plan for the Argyle Core Area and the Executive Summary from the Plan appended to the staff report dated October 22, 2024 as Appendix A, BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the Dundas Streetscape Master Plan for the Argyle Core Area, BE APPROVED as a plan identifying infrastructure and urban design guidance for future capital projects and redevelopment; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to initiate an Official Plan amendment to add the Dundas Streetscape Master Plan for the Argyle Core Area to the list of Council approved Urban Regeneration Guidelines in The London Plan.

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (2.6) Reducing Off-the-Clock Permit Applications

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the staff report dated October 22, 2024 entitled “Reducing Off-the-Clock Permit Applications” BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee received a communication from J. Zaifman, CEO, London Home Builders’ Association, with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (3.1) 763-773 Dundas Street (Z-9777) (Relates to Bill 372)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of London Cross Cultural Learner Centre (c/o Valerian Marochko) (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the property located at 763-773 Dundas Street:

a)    the proposed revised, attached by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 5, 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 Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC(19)D250H46) Zone TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC(_)D550H82) Zone;

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

i)    provide second paratransit lay-by for south tower or relocate proposed paratransit lay-by to a central location with a protected waiting area;

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

iii)    investigate air source heat pump options; 

iv)    include a minimum of 5% EV charging spots roughed in; and,

v)    utilize bird friendly policies using the CSA standard;

c)    MTCS compliance letter indicating that all archaeological licensing and reporting requirements for 773 Dundas Street is submitted to the satisfaction of the City prior to the execution of a Development Agreement;

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

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

  •    T. Whitney, Intermediate Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; and,

  •    V. Marochko, Executive Director, Cross Cultural Learner Centre;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS);

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the Old East Village Dundas Street Corridor Secondary Plan, including but not limited to the Land Use, Built Form, Public Realm and Housing Options policies.

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.3.9   (3.2) 2118 Richmond Street (OZ-9770) (Relates to Bill No.’s 360 and 373)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Encore at Upper Richmond Inc., relating to the property located at 2118 Richmond Street:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 22, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 5, 2024, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, to amend specific policy 1069 of the Neighbourhoods Place Type;

b)    the proposed revised, attached, by-law as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 5, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Residential R6/Residential R8 Bonus (hh-5h-11h-183R6-5/R8-4B-30) Zone TO a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-183R9-7(_)H40D211) Zone, and to delete the B-30 Bonus Zone in its entirety;

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

i)    incorporation of underground parking;

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

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

iv)    nine mature trees (minimum diameter at breast height (dbh) of 11cm) be incorporated as part of the landscaping plan between the south building face and Sunningdale Road East;

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

vi)    investigate air source heat pump options; and,

vii)    apply bird friendly policies using the CSA standard;

d)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as changes made to the application are technical in nature;

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

  •    N. Dyjach, Associate, Planning Division Manager, Strik Baldinelli Moniz; and,

  •    T. Cottle;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan; and,

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

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

Motion Passed

8.3.10   (3.3) 566, 568, 572 and 578 Colborne Street (Z-9775) (Relates to Bill No. 374)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, based on the application of Victor Anastasiadis,(c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the property located at 566, 568, 572 and 578 Colborne Street, the proposed revised, attached by-law dated October 22, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 5, 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 R3/Residential R11 (R3-2/R11) Zone  TO a holding Residential R5 Special Provision (h-18*R5-7(_)) Zone;

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

  •    C. McAllister, Planner, 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 Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS), which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future;

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.3.12   (3.5) 1856-1910 Oxford Street West (O-9484 & Z-9458) (Relates to Bill No.’s 361 and 376)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Oxford West Gateway Inc., (c/o Strik Baldinelli Moniz), relating to the property located at 1856-1910 Oxford Street West:

a)    the proposed revised, attached by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 5, 2024, to amend the Riverbend South Secondary Plan forming part of the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a Site-Specific Policy to the Commercial Land Use Designation Section;

b)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 22, 2204 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 5, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, and the Riverbend South Secondary Plan, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Community Shopping Area Special Provision (CSA5(6)) Zone TO a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision/Community Shopping Area Special Provision (h-149*R9-7(_)/CSA5(6)) Zone;

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

i)    increase the amount of transparent glazing on the ground floor elevation to provide increased passive surveillance and activation of the public realm;

ii)    provide a pedestrian walkway that connects between the proposed landscape parkette and the rest of the pedestrian network on the site;

iii)    provide a paratransit layby;

iv)    provide a loading space for the commercial uses within the proposed mixed-use apartment building;

v)    provide a direct pedestrian connection to nearby open space to the west to provide for off-site outdoor amenity space; and,

vi)    provide a connection to the SWM block to the south;

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

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

  •    a communication dated October 21, 2024 from P. Masschelein, Senior Vice President, Neighbourhood Developments, Sifton Properties Limited; and,

  •    communications dated October 16, 2024 and October 17, 2024 from C. O’Brien, Land Development Planner, Drewlo Holdings Inc.;

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

  •    N. Dyjach, Associate, Planning Division Manager, Strik Baldinelli Moniz;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS);

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the Riverbend South Secondary Plan;

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.3.13   (3.6) 279 Sarnia Road (Z-9774) (Relates to Bill No. 377)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Palumbo Properties Ltd., relating to the property located at 279 Sarnia Road:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 22, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 5, 2024, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-10) Zone TO a Holding Residential R8 Special Provision (h-213*R8-4(_)) Zone;

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

i)    consent to remove any boundary trees is required prior to final Site Plan Approval;

ii)    provide a low-height all-season landscape buffer for the below-grade units fronting onto Sarnia Road and/or the parking area to provide privacy and avoid headlights shining into the spaces;

iii)    consider providing additional windows on the side elevation of the corner units, and minimizing any portion of blank wall facing the public realm, to create an active streetscape and offer passive surveillance; and,

iv)    relocation of the existing Hydro Pole and London Transit Commission shelter pad at the expense of the applicant;

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

  •    D. Sikelero Elsenbruch, Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; and,

  •    S. Levin, Orchard Park / Sherwood Forest Neighbourhood Association Executive;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS);

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.3.14   (3.7) 1210-1240 Wharncliffe Road South (Z-9778) (Relates to Bill No. 378)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of G.R. Investments Ltd. & Sub-Subsational Inc. (c/o Dillon Consulting Ltd.), relating to the property located at 1210-1240 Wharncliffe Road South:

a)    the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated October 22, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 5, 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 a portion of the subject property FROM a Restricted Service Commercial (RSC1/RSC3/RSC4/RSC5) Zone and Urban Reserve (UR4) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7(_)) Zone and an Open Space (OS5) Zone;

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

i)    further refinement to the site access location and design; and,

ii)    explore opportunities to screen any parking areas exposed to the public street with enhanced all-season landscaping and incorporate significant mature trees;

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

  •    C. Wilkes, Planner, Dillon Consulting Ltd.;

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

  •    the recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS);

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

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the Southwest Area Secondary plan, including but not limited to the North Longwoods Residential Neighbourhood policies; and,

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

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

Motion Passed

8.3.15   (4.1) Hyde Park BIA Boundary Expansion Request

Motion made by S. Lehman

That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take the necessary steps to expand the boundary of the Hyde Park Business Improvement Area; it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee heard verbal delegations and received a communication dated October 8, 2024 from D. Szpakowski, General Manager & CEO, Hyde Park Business Improvement Area and T. Delaney, Chair, Hyde Park Business Improvement Area.

Motion Passed

8.3.16   (5.1) Deferred Matters/Additional Business

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the October 11, 2024 updated Deferred Matters List BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.17   (5.2) A. Badillo, Urban Roots London

Motion made by S. Lehman

The Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to allocate $23,167.00 from the Community Investment Reserve Fund to cover the cost of severing the residential portion of the Urban Roots property at 21 Norlan.

Motion Passed

8.3.11   (3.4) 313-323 Horton Street East (Z-9616) (Relates to Bill No. 375)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of M. Tkaczyk (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the property located at 313-323 Horton Street East:

a)    the proposed revised, attached by-law as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 5, 2024 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Arterial Commercial (AC4) Zone, TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC(_)) Zone;

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

i)    retain the vehicular passageway with openings at grade allowing light and ventilation into the spaces and alleviating potential CPTED issues;

ii)    retain the terraces on the 7th storey along the north and east facades;

iii)    retain a step-down to 6 and 7-storeys to the rear of the building;

iv)    consider replacing the single door with double door for the principal residential lobby entrance facing Horton Street East to promote accessibility and wayfinding;

v)    provide an adequate all-season landscape buffer along the south property line to avoid any negative impacts on the private amenity spaces of the adjacent residential uses;

vi)    add all or a portion of the long-term bicycle parking on the ground floor to provide convenient access for cyclists without needing to use elevators between the storage areas and ground floor;

vii)    ensure permission is received from the Transportation Division to allow the proposed lay-by in the City right-of-way; and,

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

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

  •    A. Richards, Planner, 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 Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS), which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment. The PPS directs municipalities to permit all forms of housing required to meet the needs of all residents, present and future; 

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including, but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design and Building policies, the Urban Corridor Place Type policies, and the SoHo Main Street Segment policies; 

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of the SoHo Community Improvement Area Plan;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment supports Council’s commitment to increase housing supply and affordability;

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 (13 to 0)

8.4   16th Report of the Corporate Services Committee

2024-10-28 CSC Report 16

Motion made by H. McAlister

That the 16th Report of the Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by H. McAlister

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) Declare Surplus - City-Owned Property - Former Phillip Street Road Allowance

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to City-owned property, the following actions be taken:

a)    the subject property being part of Phillip Street on Registered Plan 38, designated as Part 2, Plan 33R-21948, BE DECLARED SURPLUS; and

b)    the subject property (“Surplus Lands”) BE TRANSFERRED to the abutting property owner under the Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy, acknowledging that the City has identified a municipal need for a portion of the abutting owners’ site, which has the potential to address those requirements.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.2) Demolition – City-Owned Property – 624 Pond Mills Road

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the City-owned property at 624 Pond Mills Road, the following actions be taken:

a) the subject property BE RECOMMENDED for demolition; and

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take all necessary steps to demolish the building, including completing a request for quotation for work to be completed, obtaining a demolition permit and any other activities to facilitate demolition of the subject property detailed in the report;

it being noted that existing approved capital accounts and operating accounts will be drawn upon as a source of financing to carry out the subject demolition.

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.3) Pre-Authorized Tax Payment Plan By-law and Collection of Property Taxes By-law (Relates to Bill No.’s 358 and 359)

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to property taxation for 2025:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated October 28, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Council meeting to be held on November 5, 2024, to amend By-law A.-5505-497 being “a by-law to authorize the implementation of a pre-authorized payment plan” so that the calculation of pre-authorized payments is based on the previous year’s taxes increased by the average increase in total property tax rates in the residential class of the previous year; and

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Council meeting to be held on November 5, 2024, to amend By-law A-8426-294 entitled “Property Tax Collection by-law” so that the calculation of the interim tax levy will be set at a percentage of 43.06% of the previous year’s taxes.

Motion Passed

8.5   13th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2024-10-21 CPSC Report

At 4:59 PM Deputy Mayor S. Lewis re-enters the meeting.

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 13th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of items 5 (2.1) and 6 (3.1)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.2) Funding and Project Agreement between the City of London and the London District Catholic School Board (Relates to Bill No. 355)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated October 21, 2024 related to a Funding and Project Agreement between the City of London and the London District Catholic School Board:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 5, 2024, to:

i)    approve the Funding and Project Agreement to be entered into between The Corporation of the City of London and London District Catholic School Board, with the funding provided by the City of London pursuant to the Municipal Council endorsed investment in Child Care and Early Years expansion of licensed child care, to renovate a child care centre at John Paul II Catholic Secondary School, substantially in the form as appended to the above-noted by-law;

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

iii)    delegate the Director of Child Care and Early Years, or written delegate, the authority to carry out the following:

A)    under subsection 2.02(2), to review, and provide comments to the London District Catholic School Board;

B)    under subsection 2.02(5), to review a tender, and determine if the tender is acceptable, and if acceptable, to provide written notice of such acceptability to the London District Catholic School Board;

C)    under subsection 2.04, to request changes to the Plan, and to advise the Board in writing whether to proceed with such change;

D)    under subsection 2.06, to act as representative (“City’s Project Manager”) for the City;

E)    under subsection 2.02(5)(d), to review and comment upon any reconciliation;

F)    under subsection 2.02(6), to meet with the Board to discuss whether and how the  London District Catholic School Board wishes to proceed with the Project and to reach a resolution; and,

G)    under subsection 3.01, to act as representative for the City; and,

iv)    designate the Manager, Children’s Services as the City’s Project Manager under section 2.06 of the Agreement, and delegate the authority to act pursuant to that section, on the condition that any actions taken by the delegate do not require additional funding or are provided for in the City’s current budget, and that do not increase the

indebtedness or contingent liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London;

b)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED. (2024-S13)

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.3) RFP 2024-259 Prime Consulting Services for Silverwoods Arena Building Upgrades

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports and Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated October 21, 2024 related to Request for Proposal 2024-259 Prime Consulting Services for Silverwoods Arena Building Upgrades:

a)    the proposal submitted by Barry Bryan Associates, 250 Water Street, Suite 201 in Whitby, ON, for the Prime Consultant Services for the Silverwoods Arena Building Upgrades project for a fee of $161,100.00 (excluding HST) BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the evaluation team determined the proposal submitted by Barry Bryan Associates provided the best technical and financial value to the Corporation, met the City’s requirements in all areas and acceptance is in accordance with section 15.2 of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

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

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute a contract or any other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-R05A)

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (2.4) Request for Proposal 2024-093 - Thames Park Consulting Services Award

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the Request for Proposal 2024-093 for the Award of Thames Park Consulting Services:

a)    the bid submitted by Landscape Planning Ltd.  95 Mural Street, Richmond Hill, On L4B 3G2 for Consulting Services for Thames Park in accordance with RFP2024-093, at its bid price of $353,046.25 (excluding HST) BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by Landscape Planning Ltd. meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

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

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

d)    the Mayor and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2024-R04)

Motion Passed

8.5.7   (4.1) Councillor E. Peloza and Deputy Mayor S. Lewis - Concessions at City Facilities

Motion made by D. Ferreira

The Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to initiate a review of current arena concession operations and report back in Q1 of 2025 on the current operations across city arenas pertaining to food and beverage (including healthy options) concessions including revenue, current vendors and weekly hours of operation. (2024-R05A)

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (2.1) 10th Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 10th Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on October 3, 2024:

a)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to provide resource materials that can be displayed by the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee (AWCAC) at public awareness events related to the AWCAC mandate;

it being noted that the AWCAC held a general discussion, with respect to this matter;

b)    the AWCAC BE REQUESTED to explore alternatives to purchasing a tablecloth for events, such as borrowing from the Communications department or other cost-effective options; and,

c)    clauses 1.1, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2 and 5.5 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.5.6   (3.1) Life*Spin - Property Standards and Tenant Support

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication, as appended to the Agenda, and the verbal delegation from Life*Spin, with respect to Property Standards and Tenant Support:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to:

i)    work with Life*Spin and other community organizations to facilitate, coordinate, and fund an annual Tenant Support Fair at City Hall for the purposes of including greater transparency within the Property Standards inspection process, and increasing cooperation and relationship building between landlords, tenants, and the City of London;

ii)    complete a municipal scan of Property Standards By-laws and programs, and report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee by Q2 2025 with recommendations to enhance enforcement protocols within the City’s Property Standards By-law; and, 

iii)    investigate the feasibility of developing and funding a pilot Public Extermination Program, with a focus on providing systematic oversight and resolution of persistent infestations, particularly in London and Middlesex Community Housing (LMCH);

b)    the request for funding the VHA Home HealthCare and its Extreme Clean Program BE REFERRED to the Budget Committee for consideration in the 2025 Budget Update, as per the business case P15 in the 2024-2027 Draft Budget; it being noted that the issue of vermin affects special-risk individuals, including the elderly, the frail, and people with disabilities, who cannot physically prepare their homes for exterminating vermin;

it being noted that the Community and Protective Services Committee received a communication from LifeSpin entitled “Property Standards and Tenant Support,” and heard a delegation from representatives of LifeSpin in support of their recommendations; it being further noted that a communication was received from VHA Home Health Care in support of the Life*Spin’s recommendations.

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That a) i) be approved and reads as follows:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to:

i)    work with Life*Spin and other community organizations to facilitate, coordinate, and fund an annual Tenant Support Fair at City Hall for the purposes of including greater transparency within the Property Standards inspection process, and increasing cooperation and relationship building between landlords, tenants, and the City of London;

it being noted that the Community and Protective Services Committee received a communication from LifeSpin entitled “Property Standards and Tenant Support,” and heard a delegation from representatives of LifeSpin in support of their recommendations; it being further noted that a communication was received from VHA Home Health Care in support of the Life*Spin’s recommendations.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That a) ii) be approved and reads as follows:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to:

ii)    complete a municipal scan of Property Standards By-laws and programs, and report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee by Q2 2025 with recommendations to enhance enforcement protocols within the City’s Property Standards By-law; and,

Motion Failed (3 to 12)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That a) iii) be approved and reads as follows:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to:

iii)    investigate the feasibility of developing and funding a pilot Public Extermination Program, with a focus on providing systematic oversight and resolution of persistent infestations, particularly in London and Middlesex Community Housing (LMCH);

Motion Failed (4 to 11)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That pursuant to section 9.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, Councillor S. Trosow BE PERMITTED to speak an additional 3 minutes with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (8 to 7)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That b) be approved and reads as follows:

b)    the request for funding the VHA Home HealthCare and its Extreme Clean Program BE REFERRED to the Budget Committee for consideration in the 2025 Budget Update, as per the business case P15 in the 2024-2027 Draft Budget; it being noted that the issue of vermin affects special-risk individuals, including the elderly, the frail, and people with disabilities, who cannot physically prepare their homes for exterminating vermin;

Motion Passed (8 to 7)

Item 6, clause 3.1, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication, as appended to the Agenda, and the verbal delegation from Life*Spin, with respect to Property Standards and Tenant Support:

the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to:

a)    work with Life*Spin and other community organizations to facilitate, coordinate, and fund an annual Tenant Support Fair at City Hall for the purposes of including greater transparency within the Property Standards inspection process, and increasing cooperation and relationship building between landlords, tenants, and the City of London;

b)    the request for funding the VHA Home HealthCare and its Extreme Clean Program BE REFERRED to the Budget Committee for consideration in the 2025 Budget Update, as per the business case P15 in the 2024-2027 Draft Budget; it being noted that the issue of vermin affects special-risk individuals, including the elderly, the frail, and people with disabilities, who cannot physically prepare their homes for exterminating vermin;

it being noted that the Community and Protective Services Committee received a communication from LifeSpin entitled “Property Standards and Tenant Support,” and heard a delegation from representatives of LifeSpin in support of their recommendations; it being further noted that a communication was received from VHA Home Health Care in support of the Life*Spin’s recommendations.

9.   Added Reports

9.1   17th Report of Council in Closed Session

At 5:36 PM Councillor P. Van Meerbergen leaves the meeting.

Motion made by H. McAlister

That the 17th Report of the Council, In Closed Session BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

That clause 1-2 of the 17th Report of the Council, In Closed Session, read as follows:

  1.    Land Exchange – 108 and 112 Clarke Road

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to a portion of City-owned property being 108 Clarke Road, further described as Parts 1, 2 and 5 on the draft plan and 112 Clarke Road, further described as Parts 7, 8 and 9 on the draft plan road, located in the City of London, County of Middlesex (the “Subject Properties”), the Exchange of Lands Agreement, attached as Appendix “B” between the City and U-Haul Co. (Canada) Ltd. U-Haul Co. (Canada) LTEE BE APPROVED for a nominal consideration.

  1.    Licence Agreement – Municipal Parking Lot #15 – 299 King Street

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development and the General Manager and CEO, RBC Place, with respect to the Licence Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Holloway Lodging Limited Partnership, for the licenced use of the Municipal Parking Lot #15 known municipally as 299 King Street, the Licence Agreement (the “Licence”), attached as Appendix “A” between The Corporation of the City of London and Holloway Lodging Limited Partnership BE APPROVED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the Agreement.

That progress was made with respect to items 4.1, 4.2, 4.5, and 4.6, as noted on the public agenda, (6.1/14/CWC), (6.1/16/SPPC), (6.3/16/CSC), (6.1/13/CPSC)

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

None.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

At 5:37 PM Councillor S. Trosow leaves the meeting.

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 380 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Second Reading of Bill No. 380 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 380 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Pribil

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 362 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Pribil

That Second Reading of Bill No. 362 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Pribil

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 362 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 375 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Second Reading of Bill No. 375 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 375 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 354 to Added Bill No. 381, excluding Bill No.’s 362, 375, and Added Bill No. 380 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 354 to Added Bill No. 381, excluding Bill No.’s 362, 375, and Added Bill No. 380 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 354 to Added Bill No. 381, excluding Bill No.’s 362, 375, 379, and Added Bill No. 380 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

That the meeting adjourned at 5:43 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 (4 hours, 55 minutes)

Okay, thank you, please be seated. All right, thank you, colleagues. We’ll see how efficiently we can do this council meeting. And I think there’s a few people who mentioned they want to watch some sort of election that’s happening elsewhere, seems like an important one.

Let me start with the land acknowledgement, though, here for the 17th meeting of city council. We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands at the Anishinaabak, Haudenosaunee, Lenny Peiwak, and Adwandran peoples. We honor and respect the history languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area, the two-row Wampum el Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, the Silver Covenant Chain, the Beaver hunting grounds of the Haudenosaunee and fan treaty of 1701, the McKai Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, the Huron track treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabak, and the dish with one spoon, Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabak and Haudenosaunee.

Three indigenous nations that are neighbors to the city of Lenny are the Chippewaas of the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and the Muncie Delaware Nation who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs. I’d also add that the city of Lenny is committed to making every effort, to providing alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. If you’d like to make a request specific to this meeting, please contact Council Agenda at London.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. Next, we get to do the National Anthem.

Tara Dunfree is a multi-instrumentalist singer and songwriter from London, Ontario. She has released eight albums with her bands, The Rizdales and Maggie’s Wake, and has been the recipient of seven four city music awards, as well as multiple nominations for the International Amerapolitan, yes. Amerapolitan Awards and Academy of Western Music Awards. You can catch her performing this Friday as part of the words and music at the Wolf Performance Hall, celebrating London’s third anniversary for its UNESCO City of Music designation.

Please rise and join me in welcoming Tara, who will now perform the National Anthem for us. ♪ Canada, our home and native land ♪ ♪ True patriot love ♪ ♪ In all of us coming ♪ ♪ With glowing hearts we see thee rise ♪ ♪ The true north strong and free ♪ ♪ From far and wide, oh Canada ♪ ♪ We stand on guard for thee ♪ ♪ God keep our land ♪ ♪ Glo, yes, and free ♪ ♪ And always stand on guard ♪ ♪ Always stand on guard for thee ♪ To disclosures of pecuniary interest, I’ll look to see if colleagues have any disclosures. Go ahead, Councillor Cudi. Thank you, your worship and through you.

I have a conflict of interest with 8.3 of the PEC report, section 11, 3.4, 312 to 323, Horton Street East. I own property with 100 meters of the application. Okay, thanks for that, any others? Okay, seeing none, we are going to move on to recognitions.

I will start with a recognition. And then I have Councillor McAllister, Deputy Mayor Lewis, Councillor Frank, to do recognitions after me. So let me start with one, though. So today I want to recognize November as Hindu Heritage Month, a time where we celebrate the vibrant culture and significant contributions of Lenin’s Hindu community.

There are rich traditions and values of shaped our cities, fostering inclusivity, understanding, and a shared cultural tapestry. This month also allows us the opportunity to see the positive impact that the Hindu community has had on London, which I think is especially important in the wake of the intolerance and hatred that we may have seen in the past few days in Brampton, Ontario. On behalf of all Londoners in the city of London, I extend the heartfelt gratitude to all members of our Hindu community as we celebrate this month together. And I will go to Councillor McAllister next.

Thank you and through you, your worship. I wanted to take this opportunity in the lead up to Remembrance Day to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Royal Canadian Air Force and to all past and present men and women who have served in that branch of our armed forces. My grandfather served for four years in the Royal Canadian Air Force during the Second World War. He often spoke fondly of his service and those he served with.

He did see some horrible things. His service, I wanted to take this moment to thank Grandfather Roy McAllister for his service as well. I do also want to take the opportunity. It has been 10 years, unfortunately, since my grandfather passed.

But in his final years, he did reside at Parkwood Hospital. I think it’s also important to recognize the care that was provided to our veterans. I know that facility has a great reputation. The veterans who have stayed there have also spoke highly of it.

So I just want to take this moment to thank everyone in terms of the 100th anniversary of the Air Force. I know during the summer at the air show that was also recognized and London’s contribution to the Air Force as well. I know that this time of year, often we take time to reflect and remember. There are many people who have served in different branches of the Armed Forces, but I just wanted to call out the Air Force on their contributions.

Thank you. Yeah, thank you, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship, colleagues, civic administration, members of the public. Today marks the first official day of Veterans Week across Canada as the calendar approaches remembrance day on November 11th.

And through this week and into the next, observances will be held at Royal Canadian Legion branches at Cenotaphs in school assemblies and at other memorial sites in communities from coast to coast to coast to recognize, remember and honor Canada’s veterans, their families and their service to our country. From the bloody battlefields of Europe in World War I, where the Canadian Expeditionary Force, in which nearly 620,000 men and women served. From a country of only seven and a half million at the time. Canadian soldiers distinguished themselves during battles such as Artois, the Somme, Pashondale, and Aros, including the important victory at the Battle of Vimy Ridge, where the Canadian forces first served as a unified unit.

After Germany invaded Poland in September of 1939, Canada followed France, Britain, and the other Commonwealth nations in declaring war. And Canada would also soon after declare war against Italy and Japan. While we often think of the European theater with World War II, Canadian soldiers first engaged in battle in December of 1941, while defending the British colony of Hong Kong against the Japanese. These brave Canadians had no chance of victory, but refused to surrender until they were completely overrun by the enemy, and many survivors endured torture, starvation, and forced labor at the hands of their Japanese captors until the end of the war.

In the European theater, the Canadian army played significant roles in Italy, Normandy, Belgium, and the Netherlands. And Canadian soldiers first set foot on the European mainland in August of 1942 as part of the failed raid on the French port of Dieppe, although valuable lessons were learned in that raid. 916 Canadians lost their lives. 3,367 were casualties, and 1,946 were taken as prisoners of war.

That included members of my own family who served at the time. On June 6th of 1944, Canadian soldiers stormed Juneau Beach as part of the Normandy invasion, penetrating deeper than any other allied formation on that day, spearheading what history now remembers as the start of the liberation of Europe from the horrors of the Nazi regime. And since then, in Korea, in deployments throughout the Cold War, in peacekeeping missions in Africa, in the Middle East, to modern conflicts in the Gulf War and Afghanistan, Canadian forces from all branches of the military have played vital roles in peacekeeping and freedom, defending freedom globally, in 72 different missions around the world. Thousands have been wounded, thousands have paid the ultimate price and lost their lives.

On October 24th, the first poppy ceremony was held right here in council chambers as representatives of the Royal Canadian Legion and active members of the Canadian forces presented the mayor of the first poppy of 2024. Poppy boxes are available at locations all over our community, and I encourage everyone to get a poppy, to wear it in remembrance and to make a donation, because whether you put a nickel in the box or a $20 bill, those funds are critical in the ongoing work of the Royal Canadian Legion to support our veterans and to honor their memories. From their failing hands, the torch was passed to us to keep lit and held high. At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them.

Thank you, I’ll go to Councilor Frank, next. Thank you. I want to take a little bit of time today to recognize the loss of many local leaders in the community over the past few days. I want to honor the lives of Dan Smoke, Amanda Kennedy and Gary Smith.

Amanda Kennedy was an indigenous leader in our community who I met during my time working in the environmental sector. She was an educator, social entrepreneur, leader and activist who pushed our community to be better, and she was not afraid to speak truth to power. Her voice will be missed. As well as I want to recognize Gary Smith, who is the former president of the not-for-profit friends of Meadowlily Woods Community Association, and has been actively involved in protecting and preserving the environmentally significant area known as Meadowlily Woods.

And finally, I want to honor Dan Smoke, who is a local indigenous elder and leader, a member of the Seneca Nation of the Iroquois Confederacy, a teacher and activist, a writer and a co-host alongside his wife of Canada’s longest-running indigenous campus radio program. And I want to share some of his wisdom that he shared with the community that I think is especially helpful for the work that we do here at Council. Our spirit is medicine for each other and we need to connect the way that our ancestors did because every decision that we make today has to be of benefit for the next seven generations. London was made better by the work of these individuals and we’ll miss them in our community.

And I’d like to send our condolences to their family, friends and community who mourn their passings and celebrate their lives. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Any other recognitions?

Okay. A review of confidential matters to be considered in public. There are none. Council in closed session.

There are six items for our Council in closed session, our Council in closed session. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder to move into closed session. I see Councillor Cady, seconder, but Councillor Pribble. Any discussion on that?

We’ll move, we’ll make that vote. Councillor Van Mirbergen, seconded by Councillor Van Mirbergen, marking Councillor Van Mirbergen absent. Yes, thank you. Thank you, noted.

Vote is registered, close and vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, we’re gonna move to committee room five. So we’ll do that and we’ll be back for the public after we’ve completed our closed session.

Okay, thank you, please be seated. All right, we’re on to item five, which is confirmation and signing of the minutes of the previous meetings. We have the 16th meeting held on October 15th, 2024. I look for a mover and a seconder for that.

I see Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Layman. Any discussion on the minutes? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Colleagues, I’m gonna skip just 6.1 and 6.2 because we have to take specific actions on those. And we’re gonna deal with all the other pieces of correspondence once. Oh, and 6.3 will be separate, generally. Okay, we’re gonna do 6.4 through 6.6, which is all the communications that can be referred to other parts of the agenda.

So I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for that. Councillor Palosa, seconded by Councillor Cudi. Any discussion on those items? Okay, we’ll open that for voting.

Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, now we’re gonna do 6.1 and 6.2, which we have to do as multiple steps. This is where we end up sitting as the approval authority for expropriating lands. And then we make a recommendation back to us.

And then we approve that. So there’s a number of steps that I’ll just walk us through as we’ve done before. And I’m gonna read a few things through that process. Okay, I’m gonna look for a mover and a seconder to have us convene as the approval authority.

And that is under the expropriations act of 1990 E26 for the purpose of considering communication number one from the deputy city manager environment and infrastructure with respect. The expropriation of lands that may be required for the project known as the East London length project phase four. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder to sit as the approval authority moved by Councillor Huffman, seconded by Councillor Frank. Any discussion on that?

Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Okay, so now I’ll need a mover and a seconder for the actual recommendation that’s contained within the report. Generally, I can summarize it as for the East London length project.

And we will approve the expropriation of lands as described in schedule A and the staff report that’s dated today. And the reasons for this are as follows. Subject lands are required by the corporation of the city of London for the East London length project. The design of the project will address the current and future transportation demands along the corridor.

The design is in accordance with the municipal class environmental assessment recommendations for the East London length project that was approved by municipal council at the meeting held May 21st, 2019. And subject to the approval lay, a certificate of approval be issued by the city clerk on behalf of the approval proving authority in the prescribed form with a few of it being noted about the hearing of necessity and when it was conducted. And the appendix be referencing one of the staff report related to that. Is there a mover and a seconder for those?

Moved by Councilor Frank, seconded by Councilor Trossow. Any discussion on this recommendation? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

Okay, now move on to seconder for adjourning the approval authority meeting. So this is just a journey in the meeting. Just that is the approval authority, Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Hopkins. We’ll open that for voting.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, now we’re sitting as municipal council again, having received a recommendation from the approval authority, which is the expropriating authority, or we are the expropriating authority, but the approval authority is made a recommendation to us. That recommendation is fully contained in the staff report and it is identical to the pieces that I read out with the author of proper authorizations from the mayor and the clerks to execute that agreement. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for that authorization.

Councilor Hopkins, seconded by Councilor McAllister. Any discussion on this? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to two.

Okay, next, the item on the floor is the report from the Ontario Ombudsman about a close meeting complaint that was received and investigated by the Ombudsman. I will note for this, we just need to receive the report because there are no recommendations for us to take because the conclusion found that we were not in contravention of the act when we met in closed session on April 2nd, 2024 and provided sufficient information as to the general terms of the reason we went into camera and I just would say thank you to our staff for the information they provided to the Ombudsman and thank you to the Ombudsman for the report, but given we weren’t in contravention and there is no recommendations, we just need to receive the report here at municipal council, moved by Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Provol, any discussion on this? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

All right, on to motions to which notice is given, there are none, on to reports, section eight, which is the first one is the 14th report of the Civic Works Committee and I will turn it over to the chair to present that report. Yes, Your Worship, I’d like to put the 14th report of Civic Works Committee on the floor. I have received no one, no ask to pull anything, so I’ll put all items on the floor. Sure, would anybody like anything dealt with separately from that report?

Seeing none, then Councilor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, there are a number of consent items that were approved, we also received the delegation from the chair of the advisory group, as well as holding a public participation, meeting for a municipal drain, and we also received the update for the mobility master plan, phase two from staff with a brief presentation. Any other speakers to the items that are before us? Go ahead, Councilor Trossa.

Councilor Hopkins, could we have your mic, please, sorry. Thank you and through the chair, I just want to once again thank staff working on this, Kelly, and your department. This has been a momentous undertaking for us, and I think members of the public should appreciate how much work actually has gone into this mobility master plan to get us to this point that we’re at now. I remember at the beginning of the council term, we were just looking at this for the first time, and most certainly, there have been some contentious issues that have come before us on council, and we’ve had some split votes.

But for the most part, this has been a very productive, respectful, useful process. I don’t want anybody in this province to think for one minute that we just sort of gloss over these types of decisions, especially decisions regarding the mode split, which of course was the most controversial, and will remain the most controversial. So without getting into any details or why I think this is important, I just want to underline once again my thanks, not only to the staff and to my colleagues on CivicWorks, which I’m sadly going to be leaving after two years. This has been a very important project for me, and I think it’s been very well done, and I really look forward to it coming to the council table for final approval and that it’s not being disturbed.

Thank you. Any other speakers to this item? Go ahead, Deputy Ray Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship.

So I just want to touch briefly on the master mobility plan phase two update. Appreciate that there’s still lots of work to do on this yet. Hopefully we don’t keep sending you more things to add on to the plan so that you can actually get it done and bring it to us. However, I did hear some feedback about not much mention in the update, recognizing that this is in the full plan about vehicular capacity on our roadways.

I know that there’s also work ongoing, and I’m not actually sure where we are with the, and if I get the acronym wrong, I’m going to apologize off the start. I think it’s the Tim’s where we’re doing the traffic light signalization. I know there’s, at the EOC, we’ve got a control room now, but the last update I had, I know that wasn’t fully operational yet, but that was a while ago. So I’m just wondering through you, Mr.

Chair, if Ms. Chair can comment on, specifically on, first of all, where we are with the traffic signal light management, if she’s got that information handy, I didn’t give her a heads up, so she may not. And where we might see a little bit of additional information in a future update on steps that are being taken to address vehicular capacity. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. With respect to the Tim’s update, I’m afraid I don’t have the schedule information with me. I’m certainly able to provide that to you offline.

With respect to vehicular capacity, you will be seeing next month the maps for all modes. So pedestrianism, cycling, transit, and transportation of goods and people on our roadways. The complete streets category that is included in this update refers to streets that provide the capacity and safe environment for the operations of all modes. And that includes vehicles.

This is very deeply tied into the London plan and into the growth plans that are being approved with our colleagues in planning. So definitely the plan will see upgrades for all vehicle modes. We’ll be setting up our communication strategy dates very soon, we’re meeting on that actively and we’ll also be providing opportunities for both group and private briefings for council. And we’re really excited to start talking to Londoners about those investments.

Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ms. Chair for that.

I would certainly appreciate having an update on where we are with Tim’s. But I think it actually might benefit council as a whole if the update could be shared with all of us because I know that project actually started in the last term of council. And so for those who are new this term, they may not have all the details on that. So if you could share that with all of us, I think it would be beneficial just for us to know where things are on that program.

And that’s all I have on that item. Any other speakers to the tire? Councillor Hopkins, you already spoke to the committee report. So any other speakers on the items that are before us?

Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Who’s in the vote motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, thank you. On to the 16th report of SPPC, I’ll have Deputy Mayor Lewis present that.

Thank you, Your Worship. I’m pleased to stand and introduce the 16th report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee. I do know that item four, which was 4.1, the whole of community system response, been asked to be dealt with separately by more than one member of council. So I will pull that.

I’m not aware of other items that people wish to have dealt with separately though. Okay, we have a matter that was referred to us in eight too. So we have to do eight separate as well. Okay, so four and eight, then I will deal with separately.

Otherwise, I am prepared to move one through three, five, six, seven and nine. Okay, does anybody want anything else dealt with separately? Councillor Hopkins. Number six.

We’ll deal with number six separate too. Anyone else? Okay. And then I’ll make a motion.

So I will move one through three, five, seven and nine. Okay, any speakers to the items that are on the floor for us? Councillor Ferrer, go ahead. Thank you, Mayor.

Before I start, I am able to speak on the items that were pulled after, right? It’s not just a confirm. Okay, so obviously I’m gonna be speaking about the downtown master plan and the implementation of it. And I will say, this has been a big moment for downtown.

It’s taken a while. There’s been a lot of stress, a lot of work. And I can, I’m very pleased to say that I do see the mayor is fully supportive on this. I really appreciate that.

And staff is as well. I know we’ve had a lot of discussions, lots of emails, and I really appreciate it. And I know that this plan is going to be something that we are all gonna push forward for. So I will point out that this is the moment that we put all our hands on deck here.

This is the moment that all council needs to carry this through. And it starts right now, but it doesn’t finish now. It will go on for a little while. And we need that full support.

I’ll also say there are other items that come through this council that aren’t directly related to this, but do affect the condition in the state of downtown. So we need to have all those hands on deck through those times because downtown doesn’t just affect me as the councilor who has downtown in my ward. It doesn’t just affect the mayor or staff. It’s all of us.

Downtown is an indicator of the health of the city. And it raises all boats. So that’s why I say this is the moment where we really show our support and put all our hands on deck. I’m really appreciative of the quick start actions, looking very much forward to that.

And I know we’re gonna have some conversations for that. With the Q1 report. But other than that, I really appreciate the unanimous support that we had at SPPC. I’m hoping to see that again.

And like I said, it starts here. It doesn’t end here. We need to be on this throughout the entire project. Right from development to initiation.

We have very comprehensive engagement plans that are involved in both phases of the plan. So I would say reach out to all your constituents if you can and let them know that this is going on so everybody could get their voice in. Thank you. Great, any other speakers to this?

Go ahead, Councilor Pribble. Thank you. And I will talk to this point as well. And just to reiterate, into strategic plan and looking ahead, I certainly do believe that we are on the right track.

And by the way this morning, there was an AGM for London LDBA and for downtown. And the mayor had a really good positive strategy, which was again, reiterated to last week. But I would like to add that again, these are the longer-term strategic vision that’s actually gonna influence actually our next year, sorry, next four-year budget. And I’m just gonna leave it at that I’m very much looking forward to the initiatives from our staff and from downtown PIA that will take us through successfully to the long-term vision, which we are, which we’ve tabled now.

Thank you very much. Okay, any other speakers? Go ahead, Councilor Stevenson. Thank you.

I will take a moment to comment on it. I’ll be honest, I wasn’t going to support this motion, but there’s a lot of excitement in the community and here on Council, so I’m gonna vote for this. But I will say, like I’ve got a drawer full of downtown plans and there was a core area action plan for $10 million. And we’ve got a strategic plan that commits to a revitalized and safe and exciting core area.

And that core area includes Old East Village. And we are as a council making decisions or not making decisions that are having a really big impact in the core area and not in a good way. And I think we can all debate over how close to the precipice we are, but there is a precipice. And there is a lot of concern about our downtown and our Old East Village.

And I’ll lean into the optimism that I’m hearing and I’ll hope for better than I can see. Okay, thank you. Any other speakers? All right, seeing none, this is on the whole motion that the Deputy Mayor put forward, which is everything minus the excluded items we’ll open that for voting.

I was in the vote motion, carries 15 to zero. Back to you. Thank you, Your Worship. So I was asked to pull item four.

This is the whole of community system response, community encampment plan, implementation recommendations. As I indicated, I was asked by multiple Councillors, but I will say the first Councillor who passed was Councillor Ramen, who’s also circulated an amendment that I’ve indicated to her that I will second. I know the Councillor Stevenson also indicated she’d like to make an amendment too, but just in order as chair of the request I received, Councillor Ramen was first. Okay, well, you’re gonna put the whole thing on the floor and then Councillor Ramen’s got her hand up.

And then Councillor Stevenson, I’ll add you to a list, but if there’s an amendment made, I know that you wanna move on the main motion. So I’ll kind of put you on that main list. So I’ll go to Councillor Ramen first. Thank you and through you.

So I did circulate an amendment earlier. It reads as follows on part B, the civic administration and the mayor be requested to engage the federal and provincial governments to fund additional overnight spaces, rent supplements and transactional encampment services. As outlined in the report dated October 29, 2024 for a two year period as a part of London’s portion of a $250 million federal fund dedicated to individuals living in encampments or those experiencing homelessness. And part D, the civic, also to amend the civic administration be directed to engage with contracted agencies on a plan that fits the federal encampment funding requirements and report back to municipal council on the submission for the two year period and beyond.

Okay, so that’s an amendment. There’s a seconder for it. So it’s an amendment to B and D. I’m gonna put it up on the screen so everybody can see it and then we can start.

I know you just presented the amendment that you wanna speak first or, okay. Well, I can’t guarantee you last ‘cause sometimes you try to speak last and someone else jumps in if they haven’t spoken so I’ll do my best at that. So I’ll look for speakers on the amendment now which is just the changes to C and D as described by the councilor and as will be seen in the e-scribe. Go ahead, Councilor Stevenson.

Thank you. I was hoping to make an amendment to this amendment. So you can make an amendment to the amendment. So you can go ahead and present your amendment now.

Okay, so I did wanna thank my colleague for bringing this forward. I’m happy to support this amendment but I would like to add in part B after to fund overnight spaces that it read that are not located on the main street of NEBIA. Okay, so I think that’s pretty clear. I’ll look for a seconder for that piece.

Councilor Cuddy, so that’s moved and seconded. Don’t worry, this is about the maximum number of people we can have standing at a time because we have a motion and then an amendment and an amendment to the amendment but we can make any further ones though, this will be it. So on the amendment then, Councilor Stevenson, you can provide your rationale now or you can do it, you can just flag me on the street. So it’s up to you.

Okay, then I’ll look for speakers on the amendment to the amendment which is the addition of that are not located on the main street of NEBIA. Go ahead, Councilor Ferra. Thank you, Mayor. I also have an amendment but I can’t put it on right now.

So it will come a little bit later. I don’t have any issues with both, I guess I gotta speak to one amendment at a time. Okay, I’ll leave it there. I don’t have any issues with that.

So I would be in support of that. And I guess I’ll speak to the other amendment once I get the chance and then I’ll be speaking again. So that’s all my comments right now. Yeah, this is really a simple, we’re only actually debating now not even Councilor Raman’s amendment, we’re only debating Councilor Stevenson’s amendment.

So you might like this addition, you might still wanna vote against Councilor Raman’s, you got everything you can do but we’ll focus the debate just on Councilor Stevenson’s amendment about the main street of NEBIA. So I’ll continue to look for speakers on just that piece. Go ahead Councilor McAllister and then I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis next. Thank you for the mayor.

I just wanna thank the Councilor for those of us who sit on our BIA. I know obviously it’s something we hear a lot. I appreciate it. I know the struggles of the businesses and trying to get reestablished.

And so I’m sure they’ll be appreciative of this. Recognizing we do need to provide these spaces but we also have struggles with our businesses as well in these areas. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you. So while I’m not necessarily opposed to this amendment to the amendment, I do want to ask how staff would interpret main street of a BIA. I would concur with what Councilor McAllister said and I think on Hamilton Road and in Argyle that’s pretty easy to define but I think we have some BIA’s and I think of the downtown and OAV actually as well ‘cause it’s Dundas there but I think we have some BIA’s downtown in particular has both Dundas and Richmond. I know that Hyde Park has more than one street that might be classified as a main street.

So I’m wondering how staff would interpret what is a main street of a BIA. Mr. May, there’s you made eye contact but maybe it’s not you Mr. Dickens.

Maybe the question is just really on how you interpret main street of a BIA. Through your worship for the purposes of this resolution I wouldn’t suggest we use the definition of the road classification in the London plan out of main street. I would suggest that we’re using the DEF, the more colloquial definition of what is the primary roadway through one of the BIA areas. So that would be my interpretation of that from like a planning perspective.

Go ahead. And so this would be applicable to those main streets colloquial but only within a BIA catchment area. So if we were talking about, you know, Richmond, North of Oxford or something like that, it’s that once it’s outside the BIA catchment area this clause would no longer be applicable. Yeah, and just so colleagues know why Mr.

May, they’re just struggling. There’s actually something called a main street as a type of designation in the London plan which is very specific. There are only a few of them in the city. And so that’s why I think Deputy Mayor Lewis is trying to seek some clarification is because staff usually interpret our plans.

That’s a very specific thing in the London plan. And so clarity on this is actually quite important. So you’ve heard the Deputy Mayor’s kind of clarifying question if you could address that too, that’d be great. After your worship, yes, that’s correct.

So the high park BIA would be high park. That’s good definition. You’re good. Other speakers?

Go ahead, Councilor Palosa. Thank you and thank you to Deputy Mayor for that clarification as I was like, is it the main street in the London plan? Are Taylor Road’s collector roads? What are we classifying?

And realizing it just speaks strictly to BIA’s, not every area of the city would have a BIA. South London is completely void of them, unfortunately. Though certainly we have hubs that we’re operating, we just don’t have BIA’s in those areas. So just, I guess, a red flag there.

If other areas are saying it’s not good enough for their BIA’s that other areas of town don’t even have those to advocate for them. Also with that wording, I appreciate where the Councillors are trying to come from. I’m just don’t know who might be offering some of this space, that if it’s, I understand street level and people out front, but if the building was mid or high rise, that if there was opportunity for space on upper floors, that if it’s on a main street that maybe we’re trying to fill empty vacant space that we would inherently accidentally eliminate those options too from offering space. So just not knowing what’s going to come back from other levels of government, just trying not to eliminate our opportunity for funding because we’ve got two prescriptive before we even knew options were on the table.

Other speakers, right, Councillor Frank. Thank you. And through the chair towards staff, I suppose, I’m just curious. So with this then, since we don’t have beds at arc planned past December, does this eliminate arc aid as an option for future shelter beds using this motion?

Mr. Dickens. Through you, your worship, I believe it would become, if the federal encampment funds, that’s what this motion is tied to, were to be received and applied to overnight spaces. And if those overnight spaces were run by the arcade, for example, which many members of council have looked towards this level of government to fund, then this motion would prevent any of those overnight spaces from being operated where they’re currently being operated at the location at the arc homes.

Go ahead. Thank you, and to follow up from that, given that so far last year and this year, the arc was the only agency willing to come forward and provide shelter beds in this community in the winter. I’m just curious if staff have any concerns that this would essentially eliminate any opportunity for us to look at overnight spaces for shelter beds, given that the arc is located on a main street of a BIA. So I refer you don’t ask it as, does staff have any concerns?

If you could just ask like a direct question that they could answer. I’m gonna start just making sure in all of our debates, we try not to drag staff in with their opinions on matters, but their professional opinion of course matters. So as a way you could ask that it isn’t staff’s concerns, but just the factual question. Yes, absolutely.

In staff’s professional opinion, would this reduce council’s ability to find overnight shelter beds in our community? Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Your Worship.

I know we’re dealing with hypotheticals of whether we receive encampment funding and to what amount, to what extent. But in theory, what it would do is that we would not be able to apply the federal funds should we receive them to overnight, to a portion of the overnight beds that are currently being provided in Oldies Village through the building that the arc owns and operates. That is essentially 30 beds and resting spaces. Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, the amendment on the amendment, I appreciate the councillor’s support for businesses in her area, but from what I’ve just heard, supporting agencies is also important. And this is federal funding that we don’t even know we’re going to get, so I would like to allow opportunities for any agency to apply for this funding, given the need that there is in the community. So we’ll not be supporting the amendment on the amendment. Okay, other speakers, go ahead, Councillor Trossan.

Thank you, I’ll keep this very short and through the chair. I’m not going to be supporting the amendment on the amendment, I will be supporting the amendment, but that’s not on the floor yet, so no to the amendment on the amendment. The last thing we need to do right now, given the extreme need that has been demonstrated, and also given the extreme importance that this council and our leadership is placed on being able to approach senior levels of government and apply for money and get it in a flexible way. I think that this, the amendment on the amendment would be detrimental to that, and I think it very well could, and I don’t want to speculate, but it very well could put us in a situation later where we’re actually successful in what we’re asking for, but we can’t apply it to what we’ve all sort of talked about is the need.

So, I think it’s not a helpful amendment, so I’ll be voting no on the amendment to the amendment. Thank you. Councillor Pribble. Thank you, Mr.

Chair, to the staff question, specific question, Bishop Cronin, which is located on Queens of, would your understanding be that based on this amendment amendment, would this location be included as a no-go zone, or would it be yes? I don’t know which Mr. and Ms. Dater’s bear, the city manager’s jumping in, so go ahead.

Thank you, Your Worship, sorry. The question is whether or not the Queen Street location on the corner of Queen in William would be considered a main street within the BIA. Civic administration does not believe so, but we’d require just to clarify that if we could, given that you’ve asked these questions on the floor this afternoon. Well, I don’t think I can clarify because I didn’t put it forward, so I think this is a question for someone else, Councillor Stevenson has yet to speak, and I think, so she could clarify at the next opportunity.

Okay, so I will wait for the clarification because I do think that that location has been crucial for us last year, and I think the city manager wants to add something. And Councillor, just so you know, you can only speak once, so if you’ve got other things to say, I don’t want you to lose that opportunity. Okay, thank you for the reminder. The other thing is what I’m struggling with because this one is a four, two-year period.

Okay, I will leave it because that’s the main motion, but with the amendment to amendment with a two-year period, I think we will struggle to secure spaces certainly for this part, for this upcoming winter, but I will leave that for the next one, thank you. Okay, so I wasn’t truthful earlier, there’s one more person I’m gonna stand because I have Councillor Lehman, you’re gonna have to chair ‘cause I’m gonna speak next, so. Running down the list. Okay, I have the chair and I will go to the mayor.

Yes, on the amendment to the amendment, I think the idea of saying that it’s not located on the main street of the BIA, there’s a little bit of a challenge that I have with that in that the actual direction and I’ll respectfully, and of course through the presiding officer, maybe take a different approach than what our staff have said. This is about the request for civic administration to engage with the federal branch governments to fund overnight spaces. It’s not about the specific allocations and how we allocate that funding. So is there envelopes of funding that would apply with these conditions in play?

And my expectation is the federal government probably doesn’t have much of an opinion when they go through this on where we would like to or not place services related to any sort of encampment strategy. So I think I totally understand where the Councillor’s going with this piece about and she’s been very clear about the challenges that are seen within her ward about services on the main street as she has described them in the past. I’m just not sure that this piece in this spot here is the right spot for this point because at this point we’re trying to go out and get as much money as we possibly can and I’m not interested in putting restrictions on that part at this time. There’s probably a really important discussion that we need to have about where services are located generally and I think that that’s something that the Councillor has desired to do for some time.

I just don’t know if this part of this motion is really the right spot for it. So I’m not going to support the amendment to the amendment but I’m not adverse to having a discussion about where services are located across the city and the challenges that can be associated with services in specific areas and not others. And I also think that given some of the comments that Councillor Palosa has mentioned, the specific piece about a BIA means that there, it impacts other parts of the city that perhaps weren’t thought about in the same way. I think the Councillor’s got some very specific concerns about the old East BIA but I don’t want to presume that those concerns are identical or similar in all the other BIA’s or not.

I know Councillor McAllister mentioned a few comments but I think a good discussion can be had and perhaps not as part of this piece of going out and asking for the money. So I’m not going to support the amendment to the amendment but I’m not adverse to the discussion on the top. I will return the chair to the mirror with no one on the speakers list. Okay, Your Worship, I’m going to call a point of order.

You may rule me out of order on this. You may deem it not a point of order but I’m going to try following up on civic administration’s responses. I know Mr. Mather’s referenced colloquially but is there not actually in the constitution of a BIA with respect to main street funding programs, et cetera, a definition of the main street, not in terms of the London plan but within the constitution of the BIA’s that could be applied to this.

Okay, so give me one second. So I’m going to make a bit of a different ruling here. That’s not really a point of order but I do value that the piece of information that’s being asked for is very central to council’s understanding of the amendment. And so I’ll do the rare thing to, although that’s not a point of order, see if staff can clarify that legislative piece of defining the main street within the context of a BIA because it’s come up a couple of times in the debate and I’m going to create some leeway here as chair to see if I get some clarification so that we are all speaking the same language as council here and not interpreting things too much.

So Mr. Mather’s. Through your worship. The, so what we’re looking at here as far as the resolution is how do we define main street?

And if I’m not familiar with the individual BIA’s and with their documents that establish them so we can go through that and look at it and if they specify specific main streets then that’s what we’ll be using. Of course, that would be like the, like the Google standard as far as information for main streets and if that isn’t provided then we would look at what are the highest order roads through that within those areas. So we can do that additional work but that’s how we would go through the process if this is approved. Okay, so hopefully that answer from our staff helps clarify that they’re essentially they do not have that specific piece of information in front of us but how they might approach the classification of roads and the absence of it being clearly identified in a BIA’s documents.

Other speakers? Councilor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you. I just wanna say I’m happy to accept staff’s discretion on what they deem to be main street.

I think we, I don’t think we need to worry about that. My understanding of the downtown BIA is it goes to Colburn and the oldies village begins at Adelaide so that would not affect Cronum Warner at Williams and Queens which is the majority of the beds that arcade currently runs and which offers more of a path to housing than the location on the industry. So the reason why I’m putting this in here and specifically now is because and I may be incorrect and we can do another amendment but I don’t want it automatically happening without our consultation. The issue about over saturation of social services on the Dundas street in oldies village has been around for a long time.

It was number 69 in the core area action plan of 2019 to 2023. Our whole of community hub plan said there will not be a hub on in oldies village at all because of the known over saturation. We’ve got a desperate dire dying community right now. We’re at risk of losing Aeolian Hall, the Palace Theater in their 50th season.

It’s very serious right now and Sarah Campbell at the arcade has been very clear that she is willing to do services off Dundas street. She understands the problems that are there and she has been told that there is no other location in the city of London that’s available. So I’m asking my counselor colleagues to do the same thing we did when we were told that we needed 25 meters instead of 100 meters. The whole of community didn’t see how we can function with 100 meters and we said we have to find a way and that’s what we need to do here.

We need to protect this beautiful and valued area. If the city council wants this area to survive, we need to start making decisions that support it, that give those businesses and the people in that area hope. And this is an opportunity, this is temporary funding. We can do 30 overnight spaces in many, many areas.

I just find it hard to believe that there’s one block in the city of London that is the only place where we can put this. The last time we did temporary services there, they only just left October 12th. That was 15 spaces that we closed and now we’ve got 30 there and we’re saying, oh, we’re not willing to say and to tell those businesses and property owners who pay a levy who know that council has dedicated that area to business improvement, that we’ve made that declaration, this council. And I think it’s only fair to say, we will find shelter services for all the money that the federal government is willing to give us.

We will find it. And I’m not asking to touch the Corona Warner area, but on Bend that street itself, it is a very serious public health and safety, I would say emergency. And so I’m asking council to make this small amendment to let those businesses know that we are gonna find other paths to help people that doesn’t hurt the people who are right there because we can’t be pitting one group of people against another. The extreme need is not just in our house population.

It’s also in that area, the residents who are housed and the business owners. So I’m looking for council support like we did for the 100 meters that we say, you know what? Everybody’s rights here matter and in infinite possibilities, there’s lots of solutions that we can come up with if we set the proper parameters. So I’m hoping for your support.

Other speakers who haven’t spoken yet. Okay, go ahead, Councilor Lehman. Thank you, Councilor. Being we did not get the question of main street answered specifically, I understand why, but what I’m taking for the mover of the motion is the intent is not to exclude that one specific location at Queen William.

So for that reason, I will support this. Councilor Ferri, you kind of spoke at the start. I saw your hand up. So I’m gonna have to say, no, I’m sorry.

Yeah, he spoke on the amendment to the amendment saying he was gonna speak to other places. And if you, you know what? You actually, he spoke for 14 seconds and you mainly described how you didn’t want to speak at that time. So if you want to speak on the amendment, go ahead.

I’m gonna provide some leeway. It’s election day in the US. So it’s like a holiday for me. I appreciate that.

I got the blue blazer on today. I, you know, I do hear what the Councilor is saying and I did speak to supporting of that, but I did hear the questions that were asked. Very good questions by Councillor Palosa, by Councillor Frank, by Councillor Pribble. I wouldn’t be able to support it at this time unless we have shelter space available.

If, you know, if it does mean that the arc, for example, is not gonna stay open, then we gotta make sure that there is an available space for the arc before we do that. So that’s why I’m going to say, no, I can’t support the amendment at this time. If we did see an amendment that’s excluded that specific property on the main street to ensure that there is not further concentration, then I would support that. But with the way it’s written now, I can’t solve apologies.

Thank you to the Mayor for letting me speak again. You’re welcome. Okay, anybody who hasn’t spoken at Councillor ramen, go ahead. Thank you and through you.

And I appreciate the discussion here. I won’t be supporting the amendment to the amendment at this time. My main reason for not supporting is I do think that it doesn’t fall within the lines of how our advocacy should go. I don’t think we should go to the federal and provincial government and say, but we only want money if it’s not located on the main street of NEBIA.

Because again, I do not think that that’s something that they need the clarification in. And then tend to the motion is to clarify what the ask is. So I’m trying to find ways that we can be specific in our ask, but also be an intentional and share to the community what that ask is for. But I do also see some potential challenges around the wording around overnight spaces.

Overnight spaces could mean hotels. It could mean other spaces that are on main streets that are not shelters. And so I do not think that it gives us enough cover in terms of definitions in order to allow for that to be interpreted fully. I think there’s time and a place for this discussion absolutely.

And I will support having that discussion at a later time. And as that funding, it hopefully comes through. I think those are discussions that we can have. And I hope that part D speaks to that coming back for some discussion when it’s received.

Thank you. Okay, anyone who hasn’t spoken yet. Okay, so this is on the amendment to the amendment, which is just the addition of the words and bold that you can see in E-Scribe, moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Cudi. We’ll open that for voting.

I vote no to the amendment. I put it in my vote already and I made a mistake. So the vote isn’t closed, which means at the top of your screen, it says voting in progress. You can click on that and you can make sure you’ve voted the right way.

And that’s a good general pro tip for colleagues. If the vote isn’t closed, you can still adjust your vote if you need to, by clicking on voting in progress, it reopens the voting screen. I’m going to close the vote. (audience laughs) So I’ll close in the vote, the motion fails, seven to eight.

Okay, so that’s on the amendment to the amendment. We’re back to the main amended motion, which we can start discussion on now, again. So on the amendment that Councillor Ramen brought forward. I’m looking for speakers on that.

Go ahead, Councillor Ferrera. Thank you, Mayor. I won’t take too much time, just because of the clunkiness of procedural policy and how we do things. And with the amendment to the amendment, I know I’ve screwed up a couple times, so I apologize.

I do support this. There are some parts of the entire motion that this would fit into, that I have some troubles with. I’ll speak to that next, but I am supportive of this section of the motion in this amendment. So I’ll just keep it there at that point, ‘cause my other remarks won’t be touching on that.

All right, other speakers to this main amendment. Go ahead, Councillor Lehman. Yeah, I wanna thank Councillor Ramen for bringing us forward. The most important part of this for me is to have the engagement with our contracted agencies.

No, I’m not too sure. Staff might be doing that already. I don’t know, but let’s be explicit on that, ‘cause I think there is a challenge in the speed of funding. And it’s important that, A, we don’t create false expectations with our contacted agencies, and two, that we don’t spend a lot of time going down the wrong path, and then we bring it forward to either the feds or the province, and then find out that the requirements are in another direction.

So for the sake of time, ‘cause time is necessary in these crucial items, I think this is a good way forward. The speakers, Councillor Preble and Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, I will be supporting both B and D as an amendment, and I just wanna say that I do think that our vision and our path should be, not to include such initiatives on the main streets, but I really do think, which was already stated, that it’s a conversation, especially in point D, that we should have and we need to have. But at this time, I will support this, as I do think this is positive, to gain the funding from higher levels of government, from the federal government.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yeah, so I’m gonna be very brief. I wanna thank Councillor Raman for her work on this. I know she’s put in many hours.

We’ve had a few conversations about it along the way, but to engage with the federal and the provincial, and I do hope that the federal government is close to getting a deal in place with Ontario. I know after our last meeting, they had actually reached a deal with Alberta, so that’s positive to me that deals are coming online with the provinces. I hope Ontario moves quickly to solidify a deal with the federal government as well, to provide some level of matching funds, even if it’s not a one-to-one ratio. For me, the importance of this, and I said at the committee level that I did not support all of the expenses in all of the encampment implementation plan that was presented to us from the whole of community table, this motion speaks much more strongly to what I’m more interested in, which is seeking funding for additional overnight beds.

I would much rather have the beds and be able to have our transactional workers say to folks and encampments, there’s a space for you to go, you need to go, then to do more of the other things that were in that implementation plan. To me, it’s about overnight beds, and so that is first and foremost in the change in the language in this motion, so that’s why I’m supportive of heading in this direction. Okay, go ahead, Councillor Trostoff. Thank you very much.

I want to support this amendment, but I do have one little concern about it, so I’ll ask through the chair as a question, and perhaps it could be resolved through a minor amendment to the amendment. It says, “And transactional encampment services.” It doesn’t say transactional and transformative, or it doesn’t just say encampment services in general. So was there an intent here to eliminate the possibility of this applying to transformational services? Why was there word transactional in there, but not transfer, yeah, I made my point.

So I guess before I stop talking, I should say, I hope that this is not excluding the full range of encampment services, and depending on what the answer is, I would make an amendment, but by that time I would have already spoken. So I’m in a bit of a procedural pickle here, because I don’t want to make an amendment if I don’t have to. Can you help me with that? Maybe someone else will make it if the answer is not both.

Can I offer an amendment to include the word transformational, just in case? Just give me a second, Councilor. Sorry, I wanted to hear your answer, but I can’t yield the floor. Sorry.

So Councilor, you’ve asked two questions. One is, do you need to make an amendment? And then you fully have the right to make an amendment, of course, and now would be the time to do it, ‘cause you’re speaking. Let me provide this context.

Art B is going and asking for money. Art D is engaging with contracted agencies on a plan that fits the federal and Canada funding requirements. So if the federal and Canada funding requirements permit or exclude certain things, that would dictate what we’d be able to do with it. So if it permits a more expansive piece than we’ve advocated for, then we would certainly have that as an option to fund in that way.

But I think that the restrictions will be dictated by the funding piece and not necessarily the wording in B in the way that it is, ‘cause B is just going and requesting the money. D is directing our civic administrations to engage on a plan that fits the federal funding requirements. So it’s almost like your amendment is linked to, your amendment might not matter, depending on what the federal funding encampment requirement funding piece is. But you’re welcome to try to make it if you like, but I’m not sure if it’s absolutely necessary in B in this place.

In which case, in closing, before I yield the floor, I believe the word transactional then is surplus-age, and I would like to have the word transactional removed. So rather than add in language, I’ll just move that the word transactional be deleted, in which case it would be all encampment services. So that’s my motion, just delete that one word. Okay, so you wanna move an amendment to the amendment.

So the easiest way to do that is just delete transactional, so I’d say and encampment services. Correct. - Okay, so yes, you can make that amendment. I’ll look to see if there’s a seconder for that.

Councillor Ferrera, okay. So now we’re gonna debate with a new list of speakers. The amendment that Councillor Trostoff has put on the floor, which is the removal of the word transactional from the current amendment. I’ll look for speakers.

Go ahead, Councillor Ferrera. Thank you, Mayor. So yeah, I feel the same way. Whether it’s transactional and transformational or none, like I heard what the response was, I’m not being too prescriptive with the language.

So I guess in that same thought, then removing the transactional, which would allow it to be open to any type of opportunities would be good. So that’s why I’m seconding it. Otherwise I would think that we should add the transformational on top of the transactional portion, but just kind of what I heard and just opening up the ability to ask for the funds. I will, that’s why I’m seconding it the way it is, just to keep the options open.

Okay, other speakers on the removal of the word transactional, go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I’ll just say, I’m not gonna be supporting this amendment. I did like the specificity of the transactional outreach. I am a little concerned that when we have such a lack of housing for people to go to, that we aren’t duplicating the pathway to housing at the shelters, and now we’re going out into the parks and the woods and trying to get people into housing, and we don’t have housing.

So to keep spending money helping people get to a path that we don’t have, I would rather direct all that money to meeting the urgent needs of the winter and to get people into actual housing. Yeah, other speakers. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you.

I also will not be supporting this. I thought pretty clear at committee. I saw the value in some transactional. I do not see the same value in what was described to us in the implementation plan with the transformational, and to the point that was just made going out and having a conversation with somebody and maintaining a file with them beyond the basic needs provision, which is the transactional piece, when there is no housing to move them into, is not accomplishing anything in my view of particularly given what we saw in the report with respect to the funding that would be anticipated to be needed for that.

I would rather we focus on the basic needs and getting people into indoor beds. And I don’t want the transformational piece that was described in the report to frankly, become a reason to continue to enable people to remain outdoors when there are beds available for them, which I have some serious concerns happen sometimes with what is described as transformational. I think it creates a pathway to saying, no, I don’t want to go into this bed ‘cause I need something different. If there is a bed available, then I think that that is where we need to be really pushing people to be going, not to be taking steps that say it’s okay to stay out here.

We’ll come back to you the next time we have another bed that might be a better fit for you. So I’m not going to be supporting this change because I don’t support what came to us in the implementation plan in terms of the transformational piece. Okay, I look to other speakers. Go ahead, Councillor ramen.

Thank you and through you. So the motion was intentionally to include the transactional and not the transformational. And the reason was because my understanding is, then please, if anyone knows more about the details around the funding, but let’s call it rumor has it right now because we don’t have any of the specifics really. But that within this funding envelope at the federal level, there’s about 80,000 into almost not, or sorry, 80 million to 90 million.

That is earmarked for the province of Ontario and of that money, a portion of that would then be what we would be looking at. What we saw happen with the last round of federal allotments has me concerned about how much money London will get. And so I think it’s really important to be very specific around what we would fund first, what we would see is the opportunities that are in front of us for some dire supports that are needed and that comes in the form of transactional supports at this time. But really prioritizing the overnight spaces right now and getting people inside.

And I think that with some of the potentials around where we could receive funding, I think it’s important that we are providing other levels of government with information that’s vital in terms of how we want this funding to move forward. I support the idea that transformational outreach is a necessary part of the equation down the road. But right now we have in our own budget, we have very limited funds. So we are really relying on other funders at this time.

And so if I had the opportunity to speak to another funder and that’s what I try to do by way of this motion is to convey what we are asking the mayor and civic administration to convey on our behalf. And that is that we are in a dire situation where we need more indoor spaces and that we also need to keep people alive and we need to do that through transactional outreach at this time. And so that’s the intention of the motion that was the reason for it. And that’s why I will not be supporting the change to the amendment.

Okay, any other speakers? All right, seeing none. So this is on Councilor Trossow’s motion to delete the word transactional. We’ll open that for voting.

Opposing the vote motion fails three to 12. Okay, so I was on the amendment to the amendment which has failed. We’re back on the main amendment which Councilor ramen before. And I’m looking for speakers who haven’t spoken on that.

In case you’re wondering, for our layman, Pribble, Lewis and Trossow have spoken. So I had Councilor Stevenson on the amendment. The amendment, yeah. I just wanted to say thank you to my colleague for doing the work to bring this forward.

I am happy to see it. It was reported in the newspaper that I voted against it at committee that I voted against going getting funding. And it was not that. I, of course, support.

We need lots of money in as much as we can get. I was opposed to it going to the encampment plan that was proposed to us. And it was tied. It was linked together that we were to advocate for funding for that plan.

And I want us to solve the problem, not manage it. So seeing the overnight spaces here, seeing the rent supplements, even transactional encampment services is emergency need. I don’t like it. I’d preferred the overnight spaces.

But I do support us finding a way to bring people indoors this winter, any way that we can. And so D as well, engaging with our contracted agencies, I really do want to hear ideas. I’ve posted a few on social media in terms of Windsor did a warming bus very inexpensively. We had shelters like the Unity Project that were putting people in more than they felt comfortable during COVID.

And then we bought the, or we invested in the pallet homes. But there was a capacity there that isn’t being utilized. Could, maybe we can’t get 15 people in there. Could we get five?

Some of the shelters had bunk beds in previous years pre COVID. Could we, how can we bring people inside? I would really love that engagement with our partners and to see if we can get funding to make that happen. Okay, other speakers to the amendment.

This is the change to part B and D as originally written. I see no other speakers. So we’re gonna open that for voting. The city manager wants to jump in.

Always good before we vote on something. Thank you, you worship and to the members of council. It is certainly wonderful to hear about your desire for us to continue to look for this kind of funding from the federal and provincial governments. And that is our desire to do that.

I am concerned about, and we are concerned about D as it relates to the timelines that might be given to us as it relates to the federal encampment funding. And specifically about our ability to engage those agencies in advance of us having to submit and or receiving the funding. So our intention would be to try to accomplish what you’ve asked for in D, but I need to identify that that might not be a possibility if the funding requirements that come to us from the federal government require us to act quicker than we can do this. So I guess I need some flexibility in that regard that you’re not gonna completely hold us to D and so that we don’t lose the funding if it’s available.

Good news, Councilor Roman hasn’t spoken yet. So she’s gonna speak now. Thank you and through you. So I hope that it’s not perceived to be a limiting factor because I think that the intention was just that there be a chance and an opportunity to have some dialogue when more information’s provided.

It doesn’t necessarily say that it’s for approval. It says to report back. So I’m not sure if and what that format would look like, could it not be flexible enough to allow us to be responsive to any funding? That’s my hope, but that’s what I was trying to outline, but I’m not sure if that was captured efficiently there.

So Councilor, just so I can clarify, your intent for the city manager to understand and for council understand is, if there wasn’t an opportunity to report back before having to sign some sort of agreement or flow funds from the federal government that you’re just looking for a report then, at that point, you just be looking for a report back to Council to say, here’s what occurred and here’s how we’ve floated. Okay, go to the city manager. Thank you and I appreciate that clarity. The one question that relates to the requirement to engage the contracted agencies.

If we don’t have time to do that in advance, we just wanna be clear that we may not be able to engage them on the federal encampment requirements before we might have to submit or we’re approved. That is the concern, appreciate your comments about the report back and appreciate that because Mr. Dickens has the ability to sign the contract. He’s delegated that authority.

So we do know from working with our agencies what they’re thinking about, what they want. They’ve told you, they’ve told us. I think it’s important for us to say to you that we have a good sense about that. We want to work with those agencies, those agencies are working with us.

If the timelines are short, we’ll need to move fast. We do not want to leave any funding that might be available to us on the table. Go ahead, Councillor Roman. And through you, I see requested as flexible enough in the language to allow for whatever flexibility we need.

I think it’s just an opportunity again to have some of that engagement take place where possible. Again, the intention isn’t to be limiting. I think what perhaps I heard in the meantime in between SPPC and council was I heard from a number of organizations that wanted to have more dialogue so that I think is where the intention was from. And so I hope that that’s clear enough.

If there’s any wording change that’s needed, I’m supportive to give that flexibility and happy to hear from other members. So I’m going to put this out there. Councillor’s willing to be flexible on the wording. I think we all share the same intent.

What, and I would prefer to be clear rather than have you held to this. So is there a wording change that would make you more comfortable to understand council’s desire, our council’s desire, but have the flexibility to move forward quickly with the intent? I could do a worship through you. The direction in D is that we be directed to engage.

It’s pretty clear. If there’s a way to suggest that civic administration be directed, you know, answer this at this point, to engage contracted agencies, this is a challenge. To be directed right now, we may not be able to do that, and I cannot be in a spot where we direct our staff to do this because we may not be able to do it and might not be able to meet the needs of the resolution. So I think you could say we connect with agencies.

Okay, so I think your request is still a pretty clear ask of staff. If we request them to do something, our expectation, whether we direct them or request them, I think the expectations we would, given like perhaps a wording change could be if the timeline permits, inserted at the right piece, not on the report back to council piece, but on the engage with contracted agencies if the timeline permits on a plan that fits with the federal funding, okay? So, okay, Councilor Raman, go ahead. Thanks, I’ll move an amendment to add the language around flexibility.

So specifically, should time permit. Okay, I’ll second that. So on the amendment to the amendment, we’re just adding the words if time permits in the first section, it’s not linked to the report back to council. That’s still directed to do so, but the engagement with the contracted agencies is a strong preference, but is not going to be bound by federal timelines.

So that’s the amendment, the wording is just an additional if time permits, time permitting. After the word contracted agencies, time permitting, on a plan that fits the federal and cabinet funding. That’s the motion, it’s been moved and seconded, we’re down debating that. So who would like to speak to that, no one?

Okay, let’s vote on that. Was in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. On the amendment, I’m gonna speak briefly to the amendment, Councillor Layman, if you could take the chair. I have the chair and I’ll vote to the mayor.

Yes, thank you. I really appreciate the debate from colleagues. I’m fully supportive of this amendment. I think it broadens the scope and listen, I don’t think any intent here was for our staff or myself to engage in any sort of limited ways.

Honestly, my approach is we need lots of money for lots of things and we’re gonna try to capture as much as we possibly can. I wanna say, I honestly truly appreciate the city manager’s engagement and the flexibility council has given on the timeframe. I and other mayors have been out there saying, this money has been out there for a while, it needs to absolutely flow quickly. For us to have been a barrier to being able to receive and flow it would not be a great situation to be in.

So we need to be, if we’re asking the federal government to move quickly on flowing money, we need to be as flexible as possible to receive and flow that money quickly to accomplish the things that council has talked about in this particular debate. So I appreciate the debate and I appreciate the adjustments and I’m supportive of this amendment. No return to the mayor, chair to the mayor. Okay, the other speakers on the amendment.

Thanks Councilor Lehman. Okay, so this is on the changes to B and D, the amended version of D now and this is still an amendment but it’s been amended once. So hopefully everybody’s clear that it’s basically exactly what Council Raman proposed with just that time flexibility piece in it and we’ll open that for a moment. Those in the vote motion carries 15 to zero.

Okay, now I need a mover and a seconder for the as amended main motion. Deputy Mayor Lewis still wants to stand. So he’s willing to do that. And a seconded by Councilor Raman.

So we’re on the as amended main motion which means new speakers list for the original main motion. I’ll look for speakers on this now that it’s been amended with a new clause B and D. Go ahead Councilor Stevenson. I was hoping to put the amendment in as per your suggestion on the main motion.

I don’t know if that would be each. Okay, so Councilor Stevenson was interested in the amendment that she tried to attach to just the funding piece is interested in moving that as its own standalone direction as an additional clause which yes can be done. So this is just an additional piece of direction to our staff which just determining what letter we’re on. And then I’ll look for a seconder.

Councilor, are you looking to use the exact same wording used before? You just want to be specific to the oldies BIA? I don’t know what your intent was at this time given the debate. You just need to get the wording and then I can ask for a seconder.

Yeah, I’d still like to keep it to all BIA’s. We’ve made that commitment to all of them. So I’m going to get the wording in a sec but is there, I can just, there’s a seconder. So just hold on a sec.

I want people to be able to see the wording and the clause number and then we’ll start some debate on this. Councilor just ‘cause this is its own clause. This is what we have so far. I need to make sure you’re okay with it so I can put up on the screen.

But the motion be amended to add a new part to read as follows. We’ll get the lettering in a sec. That overnight space is not be located on the main street of any BIA. If we just say resting spaces rather than specify overnight.

And Councillor Cudi was the seconder. Can we just call it social services? That’s what we usually refer to it when we specify oversaturation. We’re actually, so that can be.

‘Cause we’re specifying here. We’re in a debate about the encampment strategy. So I think that’s probably a wider discussion than the specific things that we’re talking about in this particular motion. So this is gonna be in reference to the piece that we’re already on here, which is the encampment strategy.

So I think it’s probably appropriate to use resting spaces if you want. Okay, that’s moved in second. I don’t know if you want to speak now or later. I will speak now just to explain why I’m not gonna do long ‘cause the reason is the same.

But I’m grateful to the seven of us who did support it. I was told maybe it was in the wrong place. There was at least one colleague who said they would support it but not in that spot. So I am hopeful that we can give that reassurance to our businesses in the business improvement areas that we’re gonna prioritize their rights and concerns equally as our unhoused population.

And there was a comment about the businesses outside of the BIA’s, which is absolutely a concern. But these particular areas council has designated them that they are committed to improvement. And those property tax owners do pay an additional tax levy for that commitment. So that is why I’m just specifying it here.

I absolutely do think we need to support our businesses across the city. And hopefully with some of those quick start measures that we’re gonna come forward for the core, we can apply those as liberally as we can across the city. Okay, other speakers to this. Go ahead, Councillor Rossell.

Perhaps I’ve just collapsed into confusion but didn’t we already vote on this or something substantially similar? And if I don’t understand the difference between this and what I think I voted no one before, I will be voting no on this, but maybe somebody wants to enlighten me and let me know. Sure, I’ll enlighten you on why I’m allowing it, Councillor. So before it was in the middle of a motion that started with civic administration and the mayor be requested to engage with the federal and provincial governments to fund overnight spaces, and it be restricted to not be located on the main street of a BIA.

Going and engaging with the federal government to seek funds with specific parameters is different from us providing a direction to our staff that should we actually get the money that council has a preference on how it should be deployed. So that is fundamentally different. And so I have no problem having the council put this motion on the floor in this spot, in this way, because it is different than tying it to a direction for the civic administration and the mayor to be requested to engage. This is now a more directive motion to our staff on how they would deploy such funds in the city.

Thank you, and that makes a lot of sense. And I really wasn’t objecting to it being coming to the floor, I just wanted to indicate that I won’t be supporting it for the same reason I didn’t support it before, which I think is a consistent position. And so I’ll be asking people who oppose this to sort of vote no on this as well, but we’ll see what happens. Thank you.

Councilor Preble. Thank you, and I would like to mention that, and I’m glad the way I voted last time, because I really don’t want the mayor and our civic administration. I don’t think that was the right space. My first concern is to guarantee those funds from higher levels of government.

So I’m glad the way I voted the way I did, and I’m glad the motion went the way it did. Having said that at this pace, at this path, I will be supporting it, because that is our direction that we need to go, and with the additional funding that we will receive, or shall we receive from the higher level of government, we will have additional opportunities outside the main streets of BIA. Thank you. Okay, other speakers, go ahead, Councilor McAllister.

Thank you, through the chair. Again, to speaking from a ward that has a BIA, just for context for my colleagues, this is something that takes up a lot of our time. We’re already spending and devoting a lot of our resources as a BIA to dealing with these issues, depending on whether you have a social service or not located on your main street. So we’re already using our resources within the BIA is to deal with this, and I think we’ve reached a point.

I know with our guide, we share security services. It’s not something we can sustain. This is an issue that comes up constantly. The businesses are looking for direction from Council to do more elsewhere in the city.

And right now, we’re really struggling to figure out how we will be able to maintain these services. We do thank Council for obviously giving us those resources. We have also devoted our own resources to it, but this is not something for BIA that is sustainable. So we are looking for direction in terms of the next few years of figuring out longer-term solutions.

I’m happy in terms of what we saw, even with our prior debate on this, to try to find those solutions in terms of getting people housed. But this is not something that we can sustain for our BIAs. So I just wanted to provide that for my colleagues. Thank you.

I have Councillor Hopkins next. Yeah, thank you Your Worship. And I think I’ll be consistent with my vote. I didn’t support this when it was attached to a funding envelope.

And I wanna, Council Palosa reminded me a little bit. I appreciate the work the Councils are doing within their wards that have BIAs, but we also have community improvement plans around the city too. And I find when we have these discussions, we are pitting one area, BIA, or CIP against one another. And I see this more as being divisive in our community.

And I would really like to see how we as a city, as a community come together, be it a BIA, CIP, business, social agency, how we can all work together. And I think when we set this tone, it does create a bit of divisiveness and I won’t be supporting it. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Oh, sorry, I had actually- Councillor Robinson.

Councillor Robinson. And you. Yeah, I got it. Thanks.

Thank you and through you. So just to clarify on the motion, what are we constituting as resting spaces? Are we talking about daytime spaces where people can get a warm meal, where they can get clean clothes, where they get housing related supports? Is that that’s London Cares definition of resting space as per their website?

Are we just talking about overnight spaces? I just need a little bit more specifics to resting spaces cover off the CMHA ask that’s on 371 Hamilton Road. I met a little bit of a loss here in terms of that the main street designation and just need some more clarification. Maybe I can go to Mr.

Dickens on that. Thank you, worship through you. One example that was referenced was the CMHA Coffee House on Hamilton Road. That by all definition is a daytime resting space as far as we’re concerned in terms of the service provision that would also I believe could be confirmed to be on the main street of a BIA.

I don’t think the commons at 602 Queens Ave falls into the main street designation. It’s awful close, but CMHA Coffee House is also on this report as a decision of council to make around keeping that service open as well. Just to remind you of that council. My apologies, I give that a lot.

It has a microphone on it, but you might just want to check it online there. Back to Councillor Ramen, sorry. No problem. And thank you.

I appreciate that clarification. And now I’m not sure how this is an in contravention of the motion that’s in front of us as we already have the motion mentioning a resting space. So I’m just going to need a little bit more clarification on whether or not this is, in a sense, in opposition to something that’s already included in the motion. So I can clarify that.

So the difference is within the motion, we’re providing the direction to fund the CMHA spaces. They’re going to be funded from a source. They’re going to happen. This is an additional direction for the future funds that may flow forward too.

So it can be in contradiction ‘cause it’s a direction to our staff moving forward, but there’s a parallel direction from ourselves if we approve the whole clause to say, but we’re going to do this in this way. We’re funded from however we funded it. I can’t recall it ‘cause I don’t have that piece in front of me. So both can exist in the clerk’s opinion within the same structure.

I’ll go back to you, Councillor Robin. Thank you. So just so I’m clear again. So the motion, the way I’m reading in an e-scribe right now, it says that the motion be amended.

So which part of the motion is being amended as in the entirety of the motion? Or is it just at the part that relates again, back to where we were with the funding request? So it’s going to be a new part J that is an additional piece for our staff, the implementation of the encampment plan. So they would incorporate that into that piece, but it’s separate in your respect of the other components that we’re authorizing them to move forward with at this time.

So it’s going to be a new part J. I hope that helps. Thank you, that does help. So I will say that right now I see the priority as overnight spaces and not resting spaces.

So that’s my reason for not supporting resting spaces, but the rest of this is to me a challenge in terms of the location because I don’t think it gives again that specificity around what kind of service that we would be providing in the area. And I do not want any limiting factors outside of it. And I really want to make sure that we are very clear that the overnight space is the priority in the community right now. Yeah, I look for other speakers on this.

Deputy Mayor Lewis, your next, so go ahead. So through you, Chair, I’m going to try and seek a little clarity on this ‘cause I want to make sure that we are capturing the actual intent and that we are clear on what we’re supporting when we vote. So through you, be a little unusual. And if you don’t allow that, I understand, but I wonder if the mover of the amendment can clarify because earlier we were talking about overnight beds and those being in the wrong space, but that was taken out.

So I’m wondering if the mover could clarify whether the concern is with regard to resting spaces or overnight beds or both, and whether it is existing locations or new locations that the funding may open up. So through you, I’m hoping that I can get some clarification on the intent so that perhaps I might suggest some alternate language. Well, you could move an amendment but you’re asking a question. I rarely allow Councillors to question each other, but given it’s a clarification on the intent of a motion that there seems to be a question circulating, I will allow it this time if the Councillor’s willing to clarify the intent so that we can ensure that the motion aligns with it and Councillors know what they’re supporting, but they’re not.

Thank you, yeah, and I’m happy to clarify. I use the term resting spaces because that’s what we’ve been using. We funded arcade, for example, daytime resting spaces and then we funded overnight resting spaces and they do use that terminology. So the only reason I switched from overnight beds to resting spaces was to just not have us get into the place where we fund day resting spaces and not overnight.

We all prioritize the overnight beds, I believe, over the daytime, especially in the winter, that’s what we’re talking about, a winter response. So my intention is no new funding to go to resting spaces day or overnight on the main street of a BIA and I’m happy to accommodate as needed. Yes, so there’s a motion on the floors in the ownership of council. So if that’s gonna get changed, it’s gonna be by someone moving an amendment to it at this point.

Go back to you, Deputy Mayor. Okay, thank you, Chair. I appreciate that. It actually complicates the issue more for me because if we have daytime and overnight resting spaces and the overnight resting spaces are not overnight beds, then I’m not sure how to provide more clarifying language.

I will say I supported the earlier motion. I support the councilors intent here. I had intended to be brief and say diddle to what Councilor McAllister said, but I’m also gonna say I actually strongly disagree with individuals who think this is being divisive because I think we have to recognize as Councilor Stevenson indicated, these businesses in BIA’s pay an additional tax levy. They had a vote, they agreed to pay an additional levy and they pay money in to get services back.

And that is different from other situations in the city. And I think that we have to take a balanced approach. It cannot be all the rights of one group and not consider other groups. And the impact that the decisions we’re making have on them.

And so I’m gonna say that I am generally supportive of where this is going. I am not sure if we’ve captured fully the intent based on the answer that I heard, but I’m generally supportive of not locating new resting spaces or overnight beds in a BIA. I recognize that there are, for example, the coffee house, which is on a BIA main street. And as I said, a committee, although I didn’t support the funding, I think they’ve done some good things to help alleviate some of the pressures on Hamilton Road.

But as Councilor McAllister said, his BIA and my BIA are feeling this too. Absolutely, I acknowledge it’s not at the same degree that Councilor Stevenson’s BIA or that Councilor Ferreira’s BIA are experiencing this, but it is being experienced by our BIA’s too. So I’m gonna support this. I was thinking I might need to change some language, but based on the answer I heard, I think resting spaces, unless staff can provide me some clarification on what they interpret as resting spaces versus overnight beds.

I’m not sure if there’s anything I can do to clarify the language, but perhaps if staff can give me their interpretation, that might help. I have no problem with question of staff on an interpretation because they operationalize Council’s wishes and so understanding their interpretation is critical to our debate. So go ahead, Mr. Dickens.

Thank you, Your Worship. I also have members of my team online on my turn to Mr. Cooper for some greater clarity on this. Overnight beds would be beds where people are checked into those spaces.

They’re dedicated sleeping arrangements for that individual either for that night or for a period of time. Whereas the overnight resting spaces, which are operating out of the location that the arc owns and operates, those are overnight resting spaces for folks to come in there to the cold and build the night, sleep for a few hours if they need to, get access to services if they need to. And daytime resting spaces are like that, but during the day, where folks need to come in and get laundry, get access to food, warm up, connect with a worker, but they may fall asleep in a chair, but we don’t have dedicated rooms or beds for them to sleep in for an extended period of time. So daytime, coming in out of the cold, resting, getting access to food, support, staff, overnight resting.

It’s a spot where I might sleep for a couple of hours, I come in out of the cold. The dedicated overnight beds are more of a check-in. It’s logged, we know who are in those beds and they may stay there for an extended period. Through you, Chair, thank you to Mr.

Dickens for that answer. It is helpful. So hearing that, I don’t want to get into delineating daytime or overnight. I think resting spaces captures well enough.

And for me, what I come back to is, I don’t want another situation where we get federal encampment funding that turns into another first Baptist church situation like we had in a previous iteration of winter response, which was not good for anyone. And so I’m comfortable with the language that we have here for now. And I will support this. Councillor Ferriero.

Thank you, Mayor. So I don’t think this is as divisive as it could, as it is as some people might think. I have been one to say that I don’t want to see concentration of services in certain areas either, which is why I do see the intent from the Councillor on this. And I would be supporting that if we had the capacity already.

You know, I am very, very adverse to making moves that potentially will put people outside or not have that available space for people who are outside at this time, just because we don’t have the capacity as it is. So, you know, and I guess stealing maybe from quotes that I think I heard the deputy mayor say, it’s, I feel like it’s putting the cart before the horse. We do need to ensure that we have that space before we consider any type of motion like this, just to ensure that we don’t have more people on the street. Like we have made some moves in the past that have reduced the amount of overnight spaces, resting spaces, whatever spaces they are.

We have made those moves before. And the question really is, where do people go? And, you know, they may not be on the main street of a BIA, but they will be in neighborhoods or people will be in parks ‘cause there’s simply nowhere else for anybody to go. So before we would move anything like this, I would say we must make sure that we do have that available space before we make this decision.

So I will not be supporting this at this time. So I have myself next on the speaker’s list. I’ll turn it back to Councillor Layman to share. Thank you, I have the turn, I’ll go to the mayor.

Okay, so I appreciate the debate. And I think that there, I’ve sat in council chambers for a long time and saw us get very close to something, but have some small wording provide a bit of a hang up for a number of members of council and I’ve always endeavored to try to rectify that. So in an effort to be helpful, I’m gonna move an amendment that adds the additional words to the end of this without council authorization or without council approval. In other words, if there is, I guess I should wait to see if I have a seconder for that, but just same clause.

So resting space does not be located on the main street of any BIA comma without council approval. Okay, I’ll look for a seconder to the amendment to the amendment. Councillor Cai, seconded, so please go ahead Mayor. So I’ll just speak to this now and I’ll tell you why.

I think the intent is clear if this passes that we do not want resting spaces on the main street of the BIA. However, as was mentioned with things like the coffee house, there may be circumstances where if there’s a limited capacity or if there are unique circumstances that something could come back to council and we could with our authorization say, yes, this was a general direction we set, but for this winter at this time in this way, there’s another way that we could consider which we would have a full debate about and we could discuss and see. It gives us a little bit of an out for any one of our situations like the coffee house where we may be wanting to provide a general direction but not overly restrictive and provides those who have concerns, the cover of ensuring that there is an additional council debate before any significant change to the general direction to staff would be made. I’m trying to be as helpful as possible here.

So colleagues know that we’re injecting a piece of council decision making before any change this direction could occur, but allowing us the flexibility to ensure that we’re able to deploy funding for spaces, perhaps from time to time, not in the most ideal situation, if it means actually bringing people indoors in a small way at a critical time without any unintended consequences for us being too rigid on even ourselves. But again, I would recognize that that would require the full debate and authorization of council to do. So that’s my suggested amendment to try to see if that brings more people together on helping fulfill those councilors who have concerns in their BIA area, but allowing for some flexibility of council where circumstances may warrant. Okay, I’ll look now look for speakers to the amendment to the amendment.

Councilor McAllister. Thank you and through the presiding officer. I understand the mayor’s intention with this, where I take issue with it is, if we’re faced with a possibility of no options, that BIA’s will just become the fallback position. And I don’t necessarily agree with that.

We often hear that this is where agencies are located and we have to go with where they are. And I was gonna save my comments for H when we got to the coffee house, but as it keeps getting referenced here, just going to that as an example, that was just for a short term. We have renewed that contract a number of times. Even this ask is only putting it to the spring of 2025.

I don’t wanna speak on behalf of CMHA, but I’ve had a number of conversations with them. And again, it’s not something that’s sustainable for them in the long term. And this is why you’re also seeing daytime resting spaces, because from an organizational capacity, this is what they can manage and this is what they can do now. They have put in for the care hub.

I applaud them for that effort and we’ll see what happens with that. But there’s a lot of information, which I just don’t think unfortunately council gets to make these informed decisions. And that’s where I have a bit of an issue, because we could be in a position where yes, it comes back to council for approval, but people make decisions more based on, well, this is the option I have. And we hear this all the time, for instance, with the ARC.

When it is the only option on the table, you have no, you have nothing else. And that’s where I see us getting into trouble with something like that. I agree, it would be nice if we had that discussion as a council as a whole, but we don’t have multiple options unfortunately. So I think the intention, and maybe I’m wrong, and maybe councillors want to speak to this, was to try to have a standard to say, look, these areas have already taken a number of these things in the past, and now we need to spread it out.

Because to the point about this being divisive, I again don’t think it is necessarily divisive, but I think as a city, we all have to have shared responsibility. And I’m not seeing that shared responsibility, and that’s what I would like to see moving forward. Thank you, all the further speakers, on the amendment to the amendment. Councillor, go ahead.

I forgot my name for a minute, you could look over. I’ll be supporting this amendment, actually I was feeling quite uncomfortable with the previous one, and actually to follow off of my colleagues remarks. I do feel like this needs to go throughout the city, but actually by doing any main street of any BIA that only singles out five specific areas, ‘cause to my understanding we only have five BIA, so I actually feel like that is quite insular, and I feel often in the last little while we’ve been closing more doors and opening them for people experiencing homelessness, so at least with this as a fallback, we are still able to debate the merits of a specific location, and again to a point earlier, if there are only a few providers, or a single provider, or a single location, willing to provide services, and it works. I don’t want to tie our hands and not allow us to move forward with that option.

So I will be supporting this amendment. Thank you for other speakers. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you.

I’m just gonna say, well, I appreciate the attempt to get some consensus. I feel like we get to make a decision, right, to just keep putting it off to be put forward again. If we don’t create some clear boundaries, then we’re gonna constantly be faced with the fact that there isn’t anywhere else. That’s what we keep being told.

Sarah said from the arcade, she checked out 38 different locations and was told none of them worked. Like, if we don’t say no, it has to be 100 meters. We’re not gonna find that possibility of how do we solve this problem without that. So I appreciate whatever forward movement we can make here on council in this area, and I’m not gonna support this amendment just because I feel that it leaves, there’s not a lot, I just feel that leaving it to council, council’s decisions in the past have been to say yes, and I appreciate the kind hearts towards the unhoused, but it cannot continue like this.

We need to be able to say to our main street BIA businesses that we will protect them as fiercely as we fight for the unhoused. Any other speakers? We have a motion moved and seconded on the amendment to the amendment, and I will call the vote. Losing the vote, motion fails seven to eight.

And I will return the chair to the mayor. Great, so that means with the amendment failing, we’re back on the main speakers list. There’s a few colleagues who haven’t spoken. This is on the as amended motion, so I look for other speakers who have not spoken yet.

Oh, this is sorry, this is on the motion to add the J, not on the main as amended motion. This is on the motion to add J that was put forward by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Cady. Go ahead, Councillor Frank. Thank you, and to follow up a bit on those comments, I personally wanna see people inside rather than outside, and I don’t wanna limit what the federal government will fund ‘cause this is relating to the funding opportunities.

So I will be supporting this because I don’t wanna tie our hands as council in case an appropriate location for the services come forward. Again, there are five BIA’s, and I’ve heard pretty steadily from, I’ll say three, that this is an issue, but I haven’t heard a lot from two, so I don’t want to eliminate two potential areas if this moves forward that could have appropriate locations and services. I don’t feel like this is a solution. Again, we have heard many times from specific BIA’s that we need to do a better job.

I think that this is a bit of a blanket where we need to have a scalpel, and I think that we’ve been telling people they can’t camp here, they can’t sleep here, these agencies can’t use these buildings for these purposes, and I’d really like to get to the point where we’re telling people what they can do. We’re eliminating a lot of opportunities for people to find shelter, and I find this to be in that similar vein. We’re not leaving people a lot of options, so I will be supporting this. Any other speakers to the amendment?

Okay, so this is on the addition of the J, without any changes to it, we’ll open that for voting. Who’s in the vote? Motion carries nine to six. Okay, now I need a new mover for the as amended motion again, since that’s been amended to Deputy Mayor Lewis and a seconder for the as amended motion.

I’ll second it, so the as amended motion is now on the floor in its entirety. I will look for on the main as amended, any, well, this is as amended again, so it’s a new speaker’s list, so I’ll look for any speaker. Yes, Councillor Ferreira. Thank you, Mayor.

This is the main as amended motion, so this is I think— Yeah, this is all of it now as amended. Just to make sure, thank you. Well, I guess, I did hear that some remarks that we wanna solve homelessness, and I would say to colleagues, we need to be very careful when we say things like that, because we don’t have the authority or the capacity or the funding to do something like that, so we are really constricted on what we can do, and we should not be standing in front of something when we know we don’t necessarily have that, so those would be my first comments. I would also say the direction and the motion from committee doesn’t do my ward any favors at all, and I had lots of concerns with it, and I didn’t articulate it as well as I should have, but I’m gonna do it now.

In the last couple days and the last few days, I’ve been speaking to residents in my ward, specifically around Service Depot, and the main summary I guess I could say that I’ve been getting from residences, this encampment strategy is a disaster, and I say to them, this is not our encampment strategy, this is council direction. We have very much departed from our encampment strategy, and we very much departed from the whole community response, and to call the encampment strategy a failure or the whole community response a failure is not true, and I tried to clarify that as much as I can. We broke from the whole community response the day we went to implement it. We do have some parts that are still going like the supportive housing component, and that’s been very successful, but for the most part, we have departed from that, and the other parts, as we’ve discussed and deliberated certain items that come to committee, we have been departing from that as well throughout the entire time.

So I would say that this encampment strategy is no different from the momentum that we’ve been taking on that route, and to be honest, I think, as council, it’s time that we own this. We need to own the mess that we put ourselves in, and we need to recognize that this comes from our meddling, and we should stop what we’re doing, and we have a chance to stop or put the brakes on and just do some corrections right now, and I would also say that, you know, as a counselor who lives near downtown, not downtown, but just outside, this is not just an item on a report for me. This is something that is real in every day, something that I have going on just outside my door, and that is the same with my neighbors and the people in my ward, and I would just say that, you know, it is causing a lot of heartache and a lot of chaos in my community, and I need to bring that message to you, because we have maintained the 100-meter boundary, and that, the moment we did that, is when things started going down. So holding on to that is not working.

For specific wards in the city. My ward is impacted, Ward 1, Ward 4 is impacted. There are other wards that are impacted too, but the three of our wards seem to be impacted the most, and like I said, very soon after the 100-meter restriction went into effect, we saw that almost immediately, and, you know, it was a big change, and as the report said, and as what was discussed by staff at SPPC, that’s because that 100-meter boundary takes out over 82% of the geographic space the city has to offer, which leaves us 17 and change percent left over, and, you know, you don’t have to be a math genius to know that when you restrict the space, but keep the amount of people roughly the same, that concentrates people in spaces, and that clear concentration we can see in my ward, and we can see in other ones. And I would say, you know, you gotta listen to us when we say things are worse, and if we continue on with how the committee recommendation has led us to today, to right now, it’s gonna stay bad.

We’re gonna still maintain that level of bad that we have already, you know, and these are one of the other items that I was talking about with the Downtown Master Plan stuff. There are other items that could potentially undermine our work on the Downtown Master Plan, and I would say all hands-on deck is not just for that Master Plan, it’s for items that affect also the area in our court. You know, I would say, you know, as Councillors, when we’re considering a setback from encampments, from a residential property, you know, we have to take that to— 30 seconds, Councillor. Could I get another five minutes?

Just a second. Councillor Trostam moves a five-minute extension. Is there a seconder? Councillor Hopkins?

Okay, on a five-minute extension. I’m gonna do this in East grad. Okay, we’ll open the vote on a five-minute extension for Councillor Ferreira. Those in the vote, motion carries 11 to four.

Okay, go ahead, Councillor. Thank you, I’ll try to go faster, ‘cause I got a lot here. So we need to look at this at the 10,000 foot perspective, as I’m saying. You know, we need to look at how one restricted boundary of 100 meters from a residential property line overlaps with the neighbor, and how that overlaps in the neighborhood, and how the neighborhoods intersect in the ward, and how that looks at the city.

And we don’t have that. And doing that would mean that this direction would be a holistic way to do things. And I think we’ve definitely failed in that regard. I’ve heard quotes here on the last committee, and I wrote in the news, should someone be able to go in their backyard and not feel at risk because what’s going on immediately behind?

Yes, they should. You know, do our residents have rights to, or do residents have rights to? Yes, they ought to. But I think that this recommendation from committee means that some residents have rights, and some don’t.

And that is residents and people who are in encampments. And I don’t see materially how this report, and that recommendation with the 100 meter boundary is really helping us in that regard. And I think that, you know, if we say these words, but we have the report, these just turn out to be words. And I think we need to change that, which is why I’m asking if we can either add something, originally I wanted to put the brakes on it, but I understand we need to ask for money from the federal government, and we need to move forward so people can get support they need.

But I think there needs to be some changes. And I would just say, you know, like is the rest of the city okay with this? You know, like we need balance, right? And I don’t see this strategy as giving us balance.

It’s not balanced at all. So now I guess I’ll go to the report, and I’ll try to be fast. You know, I’m in favor of holding community meetings for proposed service depots, because people are saying, where did this come from? And I guess my first question, I guess would be to staff would be Evergreen Park.

Is that an approved service depot at this time? Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Your Worship, through you.

So we haven’t been operating with approved service depot locations. We’ve been trying to deliver meals and sanitation stations to where folks have been predominantly camping. We have right now been operating a lot of mobile depot services. So going to Evergreen, moving away from some locations, away from Man Street, staying at Watson, trying to be a little more mobile and getting to where people are.

And that can be because of over concentration of encampments or conditions that require folks to move along. And then there’s no need for that depot there whatsoever. So I will pass this over to Mr. Cooper to explain a little bit more about the mobile depot, process and specifically to your question about Evergreen Park.

But we’ve been operating with a lot of discretion in trying to meet needs of folks without any sort of established approval of service depots. Mr. Cooper. Thank you, Mr.

Dickens. And through you, Your Worship, you know what my real items I can add is the mobile depot is supporting people where they’re at. We recognize that with folks moving throughout our community, our outreach teams are trying to support people where they’re at. And so part of the depot response has always been a mobile outreach program.

And as the other depots at Wellington Valley at the other locations have closed, it’s required more mobile services in our community. Councillor Ferra. Thank you. So I was just a little confused ‘cause I know it’s operating.

It looks like a service depot. People have been told that it’s a service depot in Evergreen Park. But we also are approving the locations of service depots at the November, at the end of this month, SPPC in council, is that correct? Mr.

Cooper. Thank you, Your Worship. I will answer the first part of that question. I’m not sure the second part I can answer right now, but so it’s a mobile depot.

So we’re supporting a number of folks in that location who have moved to that location. So I think Mr. Dickens was quite clear that there is the process still that we’re going to require council to debate and approve some depot locations moving forward. But the current service is at Watson and a mobile location, which today is working and supporting people at Evergreen Park amongst other locations.

Councillor Ferra. Thank you. Well, I’ll be going to Evergreen Park on Saturday at 11 o’clock to speak to residents. And I’m gonna try to explain to them what is going on.

I like the thought about the circulated notice to residents within the 120 meters of service depots. So I guess I’ll go back to staff. Do we have time to circulate that notice to residents before we possibly approve service depots at the end of the month and have community engagement meeting? My understanding, I think that was answered at committee, but I’ll go to staff again on that.

Through you, your worship, I believe the city manager asked for a lot of clarity at the SPPC meeting around process. And it was at staff where to come back for the November 19th SPPC with some potential locations. We recognize we’re gonna have to hit the added agenda on that as the deadline is this week for that report. We’re working with multiple service areas to do the mapping to bring back a list of possible locations for council to debate that would then trigger a notice going out to folks that are within 120 meters of the locations that council decides upon.

Once that happens, we would then be having those community education sessions to discuss the rules and some of the expectations of what you can expect with the service people in the locations that are decided by council. Councilor Freya. Thank you for clarifying that. Like I said, I do like it, but just going to the point that we are departing from our encampment strategy, I see that staff is trying to get and do the direction that we’re giving them in the time that they have.

I would also say the tent setback distance of 100 meters for a single encampment will clearly apply to a service depot. And if we have 120 meters setback, are we really only capturing 20 meters on the radius? Which I know in last work that we’ve done, that’s the 120 is not enough. And I feel like with this issue, we’re not capturing enough.

So I would go to staff, how is that interpreted? Are we capturing 20 when we know that it will be 100 meters setback? Or I just some clarification there if you can provide that. I think the councilor, and you might be confusing the setback distance with the notification distance.

I don’t know if staff can clarify the difference there. Maybe you can clarify councilor for sure. Sorry, my clarification on that would be because we have that 100 meters setback, I don’t foresee a service depot being within the 100 meters. So if we have 120 meters from the service depot, we’re already 100 meters back, which means we’re only capturing 20 meters potentially.

Okay, I understand what he’s saying now. I would say that’s true. So if you’re providing 120 meter radius for notices and the automatic setback is 100 meters, so you know there aren’t residences within 100 meters then 20 meters in a circle around would get notices. And that’s my point.

We’re not really capturing too much. And I like the direction, but I don’t think it, I think it needs a little bit more development on that. And I would also say, you know, back to the fact that we’re concentrating individuals in the court. Like I am the position, as I just said, you know, if an individual encampment is permitted within 100 meters of a residential property, a service depot will also be permitted within that.

I see the motion says 50 to 100, but because council direction is 100 meters, I don’t see why we would say no to 110, but yes to 40, if you know what I mean. I feel like we need to be working on that. And that leads me to, I guess another question, you know, the 17% with that 50 to 100 meter rule on the service depot. Would we be looking at a list of other areas where service depots can be held?

Would that be citywide? Or would that be captured within the 17%? Mr. Dickens.

Thank you, Your Worship. So city teams right now are following the direction that came out of the SPPC meeting, leading up to today’s discussion, understanding that there was gonna be further debate today. So teams, I don’t think anybody in the civic administration would be able to speak to the technical components of the mapping exercise that would be required, because we don’t officially have council resolution on what we’re landing on. Out of SPPC, it was go and find potential locations where a depot could be located 50 to 100 meters from a residential property line.

The teams are looking at that. Inevitably, that one condition is going to eliminate a significant portion of space. When you think about practical application of what a service depot is, which means a vehicle needs to travel to some area relatively close to that space, to then hand deliver the meals, we need to get a comfort station there. So while we might find a space that meets the threshold of 50 to 100 meters from a residential property line, it might not be remotely conducive to having a service depot in the practical sense, because you can’t traverse to get there or put the comfort station, or it might be in a routine floodplain.

So there’s a lot of investigative work that needs to happen through my shares team and Mr. Mathers’ team and my team to really investigate what is possible so that we can, in rapid order, bring you a list of possible spaces. So yes, the encampment direction is 100 meters set back. The service depot direction is 50 to 100 meters set back.

We’re gonna have a ton of mapping to do to get this back to you by November 19th. And so I can’t speak to the technical what that will look like, where there will be, it’s gonna be some challenge for sure. Councillor Ferra. Thank you, Mr.

Dickens. I’m sorry to put you on the spot there. I know, I understand that we have departed from this, so some of the questions might be hard to answer, and you still need to do your diligence on that. I would think that once the federal government realizes that our plan does have some issues, I don’t know how they would take that.

And for me, I don’t necessarily feel comfortable submitting this to the federal government for money, just because of the issues that are clearly popping up in my eyes. I don’t think this is a good case to present for federal cash. So I’m basically saying to colleagues, why not fix this now? Like, it’s better late than too late.

So that’s why I have an amendment that I would like to— 30 seconds. That would add to this. I would try to say this a member really fast. It’s basically what I was speaking to, the geographic areas in the city that prohibit encampments with 100 meters set back versus areas that are permitted.

And I’m looking for an analysis, a report for the three set back amounts of 25 meters, 50 meters, and 100 meters. And I would like to see that analysis compare wards that are impacted versus wards that are not impacted. And I think that would help us be able to have an informed decision on this matter. So I do have that motion.

I was working on it last minute, so if I could just maybe put that up for— Yeah, you’re done talking, but read out your amendments so I can see if there’s a seconder. Okay, so the amendment that I have right now is the motion be amended by adding a new part J to read as follows. Civic administration be directed to report back with respect to the setback amounts from any private residential property line in the community encampment response plan with the following criteria included. I, an analysis of available geographic areas in the city, which focus on potential setback distances of encampments from residential property lines, specifically 25, 50, and 100 meters.

I, I, an assessment of the remaining available space in each geographic area after applying the setback distance listed in A above. And I, I, I, award by award impact analysis indicating which wards would be affected or unaffected by each setback distance. Okay, that’s the Councilor’s suggested amendment, which would be at this point, not J, but K, a new additional K. I’ll look for, to see if there’s a seconder for that.

Councilor Trossau is willing to second. So we can now debate the amendment, which moved and seconded, and we’ll get on the screen. So colleagues can see, and I can start a speaker’s list on the amendment to the main motion. And Councilor Ferrer, I don’t know if you wanna go first or not, but you, you can speak to the amendment.

I will speak to the amendment. I’m looking for, or the Council to understand that when we say it’s bad, we’re not lying. And this is going to maintain the level of bad that we have. And, and this, you know, this committee direction in my opinion, and with all due respect is a plan that is worse than no plan.

So I’m asking, please, let’s just give the people of this city something better. Okay, other speakers to the amendment, which you can now see on the screen, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yeah, I’m gonna be brief, you worship, but this will be a no for me. And with all due respect, the Councilor has spoken for nine and a half minutes before introducing an amendment that in my opinion is work that should have been done at committee, where we had a very, very extensive discussion on this then.

And now we’re gonna ask staff to undertake a, as we heard said, a significant amount of work on an implementation that needs to happen, arguably in the next two or three weeks, I would suggest, like, we need to have things moving, we need to have things identified, because there are going to be deadlines on this federal funding, I don’t know what they are, because we don’t even know if they’ve got an agreement with the province yet, but I’m not asking staff to go back and do all of this work. I’m sorry, but this is, this should have been raised at committee, it should have been circulated in advance, I’m not supporting this. Other speakers to the amendment? Go ahead, Councillor McAllister.

Thank you, and through the chair, I understand what the Councillor’s intention is behind this, to be perfectly honest with you, I think this is something that I would have liked to have seen with the ask for the reduction anyways. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I spent a lot of time doing damage control with my residents in terms of having to explain the report to them. Unfortunately, it was something, you know, I get where the staff was coming from, our agency supports where they’re coming from, and the challenge it was presenting to them, but in terms of showing options, I would have liked to have had a more fulsome list of depots from the outset. I think, unfortunately, what we got was a preferred option, options, that were put on the table.

And I found myself in a situation where I had to make those amendments, because of what I was hearing from my residents. A lot of those depots would have fallen in my location, in terms of what I was hearing with the setbacks. It was too short of a distance for many of my people. And so this is something, I think, that should have been done earlier in this process.

And I think, unfortunately, we’ve gone way past that point, where we now have to make hard decisions. And this is why I put in those amendments that you’ll see for the depots, because I need more options. And what was presented to me was essentially something too low and not acceptable to residents, and then nothing in between. And that’s the situation we’re at, and that’s the conversation we’ve had over and over again on this, is I honestly think residents would have liked to have seen those options and seen what those setbacks would have looked like.

But we’ve gone past it, and unfortunately, we just don’t have time again. And this is something, I’m having deja vu. It seems like every fall, we have the discussion, where there’s not enough time. And unfortunately, that’s where we’re at.

And I know what you’re trying to do, and I get it. I would have loved to have had this earlier, but unfortunately, I can’t support it, because I think it’s too late in the game for this. Other speakers on the amendment. Mr.

Trossal. Through the chair, this is addressed to, I guess, everybody. Yeah, it would have been better to have seen this before. It’s not the first time this type of information has been raised.

I am very concerned that we’re entering into some very perilous areas here, very perilous areas. And if we have to slow down a little bit or work a little bit harder to do our due diligence, yeah, it might have been better to have done this before, but it’s worse if we don’t do it now. And in terms of the counselor just coming up with a motion now that you should have come up with before, we’ve been sitting here for a couple of hours now, going through a whole range of motions. So I think it’s really not a great idea to be chiding one particular calendar, sorry, for coming up with a motion.

Well, okay, point of order. No, no, when there’s a point of order, I’ll just turn off everyone’s microphone. When there’s a point of order, we pause and I deal with the point of order, go ahead. Your worship, I stated this earlier.

The other motions that we’ve had today were circulated in advance. Amendments were made to them, yes, on the floor, but they were circulated in advance. This one was not, there’s a distinction between a motion that is circulated and a motion that is not. Okay, it’s not really a point of, so if it’s a point of order, it’s irrespective of someone’s opinion on the desirability of seeing things in advance for their colleagues, colleagues can, and do have the ability to move motions on the floor.

And so as a point of order, if that’s what you’re asking it as, it is within the rules for the counselor to make the motion that he’s making today, irrespective of each counselor’s opinions about the desirability and to all of the counselors who are chiming in on this. Debating about whether or not someone should have done something is not, takes away from the debate of actually addressing the concern. So let’s keep the debate from this point on focused on the matter before us so that we can get to a break and we can continue with the business of council. So I’m saying the point of order is dealt with and I would really encourage colleagues to speak at this point to the motion on the floor.

Thank you and I think that’s very good advice. So I’m gonna look forward, I’m gonna look forward to what I think we should be doing. I think we should be doing what is suggested in the motion and I think it’s imperative that we do that. And I guess I don’t wanna get myself into a situation where I’m getting into legal issues or things like that, but I think that this is very moderate, careful advice that we’re getting from the councilor here.

And so I’m gonna be supporting, I’m gonna be supporting the motion. And if we need to call another meeting, we need to call another meeting ‘cause I think it’s imperative that we deal with this. And I think that the information that is coming forward from this particular request, I call it due diligence and we have to do that. So unless there any point of asking staff whether what he is suggesting would be considered due diligence and could help us out or is that speculative?

No, that’s not a good use of asking staff questions about their opinions on interpretation of due diligence. We get to decide how we want to proceed and there’s a motion on the floor that the council’s put forward, so we will debate that. Okay, so I’ll support the motion and I’ll leave it at that, thank you. Okay, other speakers on the amendment.

Okay, seeing none, this is on Councilor Ferrer’s amendment. We’ll open that for voting. Those in the vote motion fails, four to 11. Okay, so that means we’re still on the main motion as amended, which Councilor Ferrer has now spoken to.

Any other speakers on what is the main motion as amended? No, you’ve already spoken. It didn’t get changed again. You had nine and a half minutes.

Other speakers, go ahead, Councilor Trossa. I’d like to make a recording. I know that we’ve been through votes on individual items, but would it be redundant to ask for certain items to be voted on separately? Because I think some of the things in here, I’m very, very happy to support, but other things I would not want to support.

And I know I’ve made my position clear on the intermediate amendments, but can I get some guidance on that? ‘Cause I can’t vote yes on this entire thing with everything in it, particularly J. So that’s a question to the— So I’m gonna answer your question, Councilor. I would say as a chair, and with a desire, does our ability to run the meeting and the decision making of Council as efficiently as possible, it’s not ideal to separate things out that we have clearly debated the colleagues have carved out positions on, but I cannot stop a member of Council from requesting it, Council from requesting it, but I would say from an efficient meeting standpoint, my opinion, which you’ve essentially asked for with the phrasing of your question, is it’s not ideal, but it is allowed to separate the question.

In which case, I’ll just reiterate that, oh my, it’s 406, and yes, we have been doing a lot of committee work here today. I don’t wanna prolong this any longer than it is, and I see where this is going. I’ve made my position pretty clear on some of the amendments that came up, particularly the ones that preclude services from being offered in any particular location. I do stand on my vote against those, but I’ll leave myself to the pleasure of the chair and other Council members, thank you.

Okay, other speakers to the main motion as amended. Go ahead, Councilor McAllister. Thank you and for the chair. I won’t rehash the discussion we had a committee.

I think we had a very lengthy discussion in terms of the depots. I thank my colleagues for supporting those amendments I brought forward. I do just wanna take this opportunity to speak to G, just again, ‘cause it’s been mentioned a number of times in terms of the CMHA funding through the coffee house. I did support this committee, and I’m willing to again support it, recognizing the good work they have done in the community.

I do also recognize it is in my BIA area. Have a lot of discussions with my BIA about this. We have a good working relationship with the coffee house in terms of, they provide cleaning services once a week, that the BIA sponsors, and that has been a successful project that we’ve done. So I’m not necessarily against this one through my discussions with CMHA.

I think they’re having discussions as to what their long-term plans are in terms of that location. I’m confident to support this until the spring in terms of the daytime services they provided, knowing that that’s something that they have the capacity to actually do, but also recognizing that they have plans in terms of their location and their services moving forward. I do encourage my colleagues if you wanna have a longer discussion with them to reach out and speak about the coffee house, or if you haven’t done a tour, please do so to see what they do in the community. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Palosa. Thank you, I know I haven’t spoken much tonight. I do realize as we move through these conversations that it’s always with mindfulness that we’re, I would say, really in the weeds about funding that we may or may not get, that may or may not be enough, that may or may not come in time. And overall, the big picture is we still have residents on our street who are suffering and potentially a loss of life that’s to come.

So I’m gonna ask for Jay to be called separate, realizing that regardless, if they’re indoor and resting places or not, they could still be resting on the sidewalk and which is still in view of residents, potentially blocking the sidewalk, which I also heard they don’t wanna see. So I just like Jay called separate. Yep, we can call Jay separate. Councilor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you, Your Worship for recognizing me. And I thank the Councilor for pulling Jay. I do, I won’t be supporting it. And I do think it’s important that it be pulled as it is recorded that way.

I know we had a long debate committee. I’m not completely convinced that this recommendation is, I think it could have been improved. I didn’t support the 100 meters, but it’s all recorded in the way I voted. Going forward, we need opportunities to take advantage of funding.

So I’m okay with moving forward. I do appreciate Councilor Ferrer’s remarks around the challenges that he is experiencing in his ward. And I heard around the horseshoe how it’s too late. I don’t think it’s ever too late to try to improve recommendations.

I appreciate Councilor Ronan’s work that she has been doing behind the scenes. It does take a lot of work. And if we don’t have motions presented before committee, I think that’s okay. There are opportunities to discuss it.

And yeah, meetings do go on forever, but these are important conversations that we need to have around the table. So generally supportive of the recommendation, but I will be requesting Jay as well to be moved to people. Okay, Jay is already separate. So, but we’re just gonna do that at the voting part.

We’re not redubating things. So just debate the whole motion. Go ahead, Councilor Stevenson. Thank you.

I just wanted to quickly say I did not support this as a whole motion at committee, but I do really appreciate the work that we’ve done and the amendments that have been made. And I am gonna support it today and that does feel good. So I do appreciate the efforts that everybody’s made to make this better. I did just wanna say a couple of things ‘cause it was mentioned a few comments.

I think that were directed at me about solving homelessness. We have lots of things we call, we have vision zero. It’s about steps towards solving homelessness. So if we’re making even a tiny step towards that goal, then we’re in the right direction.

I really think we have so limited funds and so limited resources in terms of staffing and agencies that we get to make sure that we’re moving the needle forward and as tempting as it is to get into crisis management, I think we really get to make sure that we’re moving forward. And that’s why I wanna keep that goal and keep saying, let’s solve this, even though we don’t see how. And the other comment that was made was around well, we might as well bring people inside because they’re just gonna be in the doorway or on the sidewalk. And it’s trespassing to be in the doorway and you’re not allowed to be on the sidewalk.

It blocks the pathway for accessibility and everything else. So let’s find a good place for people to be, a place that’s safe where they can be indoors overnight and not try to say, oh, well, it has to be here because it’ll just be something else. No, we’ve committed to a great city to taking care of our residents housed and unhoused. And I really just wanna thank my colleagues and I will be supporting this.

Okay, any other speakers? Okay, so we’re gonna do everything but J, same over in seconder, everything but J. That’s what we’re gonna vote on. We’ll open that for voting.

Close in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. And now J, same over in seconder. Popped up, don’t wanna wait, I’ll pop up again, don’t worry. Close in the vote, motion carries nine to six.

Okay, so we’re gonna take a break, even though we’re in the middle of a committee report because there’s more to the committee. So I’m gonna look for a motion for a 20-minute recess. Yes, 20. Councillor Hopkins and Councillor Ferrera moved and seconded.

All those in favor by hand will do. Nice and high. Opposed? Okay.

My motion carries. Thank you. Peace be seated, thank you. Okay, we’re in the middle of the SPPC report.

So I’ll go back to the deputy mayor to continue the presentation of that report. We are in the middle of that report. I’m now gonna put item six on the floor. This is with respect to the communication received from Councillor Raman and Councillor Frank regarding board’s agencies and commissions.

And it was a 10-5 divided vote. Okay, so this is the being noted that the information was received. Okay, that’s on the floor. I’ll look to anybody who wants to speak to it.

Seeing none, then we can open that for voting. Calling once for Councillor Palazzo. There we go, thank you. Yes.

Thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries 13-2. And your worship, we now move on to item eight. That was 4.5.

This is with respect to the committee appointment preferences submitted by council members. This was referred with a planning, an environment committee, an infrastructure and corporate services committee constituted and a community and protective service committee not constituted. So this was referred to council. I’ll put that on the floor to the extent that I can.

And I’m in your hands as chair as to where to take it from there. Okay, so we can proceed because the committee has handed us some information. We have two fully populated committees. We have one with a space on it.

So the way that I would intend for you to proceed or in the presentation of your report is we will see if there’s any discussion on the existing committees as they’re populated. We’ll see if there’s anyone willing to serve in the vacancy spot. If there isn’t anyone willing to serve in the vacancies spot after we’ve checked, I will provide some guidance on next actions that we could take at that time. But I want to give it a chance to see if someone has looked like or thought about it and looked like they want to serve or someone wants to take on another one, whatever.

I just have to give it a chance to be on the floor council before I provide some additional guidance. So are you looking for me to move A and B and then deal with C? Yes. So I will move A, B and the it being noted clause that with the chair and vice chair appointments.

Okay, so this is A and B, which is the population of the two standing committees that were fully populated at SPPC. Is there any discussion on that? You can open that for voting. Wasn’t vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Okay, you can put the next one on the floor. So all I have to put on the floor now is that the community and protective services committee and member appointment process be referred to municipal council. So we’re here and I’m in your hands as to how to proceed. So presuming everybody who’s put their name forward is willing to serve as was discussed at the committee.

I’m just looking to see if there’s any other member willing to fully populate that committee at which time if they put their name forward, we can move a motion. If not, I will seek a referral with some additional guidance while I’ll provide some additional guidance. Go ahead. So from the committee work then, I will move the community and protective services committee include Council Trust and Councilor Perbal, which were the two individuals who were approved at the committee or who indicated at the committee that they would serve.

Yeah, so we require the procedure by-law to have at least one more member appointed to proceed with the committee as it’s currently structured. So I’ll just look to council and see if there’s anybody willing to serve on that committee this time. Seeing that no one’s willing to refer, I’m gonna put myself and the speakers listen to have Councilor Lehman chair. I have the chair and I will go to the mayor.

Okay, so it’s my intent colleagues to refer this to our next council meeting for decision. Between this point and that point, it’s my intention to use strong mayor powers to shrink the size of the committee to four members. I don’t expect additional members to serve. The committee as it’s populated with the functions needs to function.

And so this referral passes will be able to appoint the existing members who have volunteered with the committee of four plus the mayor. And that’s how we’ll proceed because the business of the committee in my opinion needs to proceed. I don’t think it’s functional to divide these duties across the existing committees. I think that the committee is structured well.

And from my assessment of the options that I would have before me and council, this seems like the one that is the most functional and allows the committee to proceed. So I’ll put a referral on the floor if there’s a second or four. And I see the deputy mayor has agreed to second. So I’ll look for any comments or a discussion on this motion.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. I would say this is in terms of council, something that hasn’t happened before. Just interested to know if you’re willing to share what other options were available to you or to council with or without strong mayor powers.

It’s been the norm mayor. You don’t have to answer that. But if you’re willing to go ahead, please go. So just to outline the council’s questions, the reason why I’m suggesting the use of strong mayor powers is council were to choose to shrink the committee.

Because it would be a change of the procedure by law, it requires public notice, a full public meeting, a change of that, and given the timeframe under which we would like to constitute the committee, which is when these existing committees expire. So the start of December, that is the quickest possible way to provide the direction for a functioning committee without using the powers that are available to the municipality and some that are bestowed in my office. So yes, council could as a whole go through a longer process, we would have to delay the work of the committee and we could make that decision. The other options that I would have before me would be consideration of eliminating the committee and dividing the duties across other committees or shrinking the committee.

I have no ability to appoint members to the committee besides the chairs and vice chairs, only council can populate a committee. So that’s where the limitations are. And my desire and intent to do this this way is to move the motion myself so I can hear a debate from colleagues about what they think, about the suggestion to shrink it before I make the decision and to provide council with an option that creates a fully functioning committee on a timeframe that aligns with council’s desire to refresh the committees in December. Councillor Pluzza.

Thank you, just to follow up then, I would assume, but wanna make sure that come fall 2025, should there be enough members interested in this committee that we can expand the population of it back to five members. Mayor. So I’ll do better than that. If through the course of the year, it becomes evident that a member would like to serve at any point during the year through the use of legislation that I have at my disposal, I could increase the size of the committee and council could appoint an additional member at any point during the calendar year, but as my intent to only create this authorization for the existing committee schedule, we would go back at the end of 2025 and we would go through the process of ranking for full five member plus the mayor committees.

But if it became evident through the course of the year that there was a desire for someone to serve, I could expand the committee at that time and we could then, I would have to come to council to have that member populated, but we could do that. So I would endeavor to do that to, I think committees of five is ideal. Council. Thank you.

While I’m disappointed in the actions that are before us today, I appreciate the mayor’s direction of a way forward and explaining the options that would have been available to us. Thank you. Other comments or questions? Councilor Stevenson.

Thank you. I’ll be supporting the referral and I wanted to thank the mayor for finding a pathway forward as well. I also wanted to address any concerns that the public or council might have about why I’m not putting my name forward on this committee. I did wanted to say that I am on six local boards, the Elgin Water, the Middlesex London Paramedic Service, the London Police Service, RBC London Convention Center, Odys Village BIA, Western Fair Association.

I’m also on a provincial board, the Ontario Association of Police Service Boards. In my first year, I was on three council committees. In addition to SPPC, I was on corporate community, protective services, corporate services and audit. My second year, I was on corporate services and audit and I am still on audit and SPPC this year.

I will also, I’ve been on most of the ad hoc committees, governance working groups, strategic opportunities, review working group. I’m in a situation that relates to my role as a city councilor, currently, that just makes it not appropriate for me to be on community and protective services in this next little while. So that will probably be public information in the next month or so, but until then, I just want the public and my fellow councilors to know that there are reasons why I’m not putting my name forward and I will be attending the committees and doing my work for, on behalf of the residents. For comments or questions, I’ll turn on.

Thank you and through you. I’m a bit perplexed why this is the only path forward to shrink the size of the committee at this point. One, I see some governance challenges with, and I know that councilor Ferrer will do an amazing job, chair, but just with an even number, even though the mayor is another vote on that, it almost puts the mayor in a position and of having to attend that committee more often in order to ensure that there isn’t issues with breaking ties and things like that. So I see some challenges with that that I think will be difficult to manage.

I don’t know if this is possible to answer, but perhaps the clerk might be able to help me in this. Is there anything in the mayor’s strong mayor power to allow the deputy mayor to sit in place at the mayor at a committee? If the mayor’s still here, if that makes sense. I’ll go to the clerk.

Thank you through Mr. Presiding Officer. One of the challenges is in the current procedure by-law, the mayor sits as an ex officio of committees, the mayor as head of council. The challenge there is whoever is going to be sitting on that committee would either have to be an ex officio sitting as the mayor in which he would appoint the acting mayor for that period.

The limitation that he alluded to earlier in the municipal act regarding chair and vice chair appointments does not permit appointment of other members and that would include deputy mayor. So the path forward given the strong mayor legislation in part 6.1 of the municipal act as I understand it, as well as within the council procedure by-law, it’s very limited and it would require the mayor to appoint an acting mayor to sit as ex officio as it’s currently set out. I hope that answers the council’s questions. Thank you, it does.

So I’m sorry, Deputy Mayor Lewis, I can’t sign you up for more work right now, but I do appreciate that answer and I don’t think that that’s also a solution, but I wanted to look at other options. Within our own policy, it does say that council members shall make every effort to serve on different standing committees throughout the council term. I’m just wondering whether or not it’s possible after this motion is in referral process right now in the hands of council, obviously. But if this is referred, if we could get information on how many of us have served on different committees, this term so far while we’re looking at some of those options.

I’ll go to the clerk to answer that. Yeah, certainly through Mr. Presiding Officer, we can certainly circulate that after council. Councilwoman.

Thank you. I understand that we all have commitments outside of the commitment that we have here with our standing committees. However, I do think that it is appropriate that we all take the opportunity to serve where we can. And so for that reason, I do think that the policy itself does try to attribute the fact that we’re all supposed to be doing a bit more of that rotation through the wording on council members shall make every effort to serve on different standing committees.

So I look forward to receiving that information. If it’s a matter of the need for a councilor to switch, I would, I know that we just dealt with that item, but of appointing people, but I’m open to that. I just, I do believe this is about also the division of labor amongst us. And I think it’s important to have a healthy division of labor amongst us in order to share the work and for the community to feel represented.

Other comments or questions? Dr. Mayor. Mr.

Presiding Officer, just on a point of personal privilege. I appreciate Councilwoman Nott volunteering me for more work. Other comments or questions? We have a motion moved and seconded.

Seeing none, I’ll call the vote. Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. And I will hand the chair back to the mayor. Okay, back to the deputy mayor.

And that will conclude the 16th report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee. I’m gonna take this opportunity before I sit down to just advise the mayor and the clerk that I’m gonna be stepping out of the meeting for about five minutes. I will be returning. So I just wanted to advise that I will be leaving the chambers briefly.

Thank you. That’s actually following the procedure by-law. So I appreciate that. We’re on to the 16th report of the Planning and Environment Committee.

And so I’ll go to Chair Layman to present that report. Thank you. And I won’t take it personally, Deputy Mayor, that you step out when I stand up. Mayor, I have had no request to pull any of the items on.

I’d like to present the 16th report. Councilor Cady has a conflict on number 11, so. Correct, thank you very much. Thank you for reminding me that.

So I’ll put the 16th report of the Planning Committee, Environment Committee on the floor, item number 11’s. Pulled, I have had no other request for any items to be pulled. Anybody like anything else that was separately from the Planning Report? So I will be pleased to put one through 10 and 12 through 17 on the floor.

I’ll move those. Okay, any debate on all those items or discussion? Yeah, go ahead, Councilor Trossa. I didn’t wanna pull the item, but I just wanted to say, when item 15, Hyde Park, Hyde Park, DIA boundary, as the ward councilor and one of the new wards that the uptown BIA will be coming to, and I got that jingle in my head, and I love it.

I just wanted to say how pleased I am. I did have the chance to meet with them, and I did have concerns about the representation of any of the merchants who are along the Wonderland and Oxford corridor, and I think this is going to be a good development, and I do look forward to working with them. Thank you. Okay, any other speakers?

Go ahead, Councilor Pribble. Thank you, and just I would like to chair, I would like to make a comment, and Kudos, and thank you to the staff. If I look at the inspections, building code compliance and plumbing, we are looking over 30,000 inspections, and all 100% within the provincial 48-hour period, so thank you very much for that effort. To your entire team, thank you.

Any other speakers? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed and vote, motion carries 14 to zero. And I will now put item 11 on the floor.

Okay, item 11 is on the floor. Any discussion on item 11? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed and vote, motion carries 13 to zero, with one more cue as well.

Thank you, and before I sit down, Mayor Field just allow me a comment. You know, as we finish up another year here, I just wanna say thank you to Mr. Mathers and your team for the excellent work that has been done in a very high-profile area. This particular agenda that we just passed results in another 875 units, zoned, ready to go.

The building report included in this shows the uptake now in building permits, which is adding more to your workload as you turn them around faster, as required by all of us, and needed, much needed. So to you and your staff, from the chair, and I believe the Councillor and the Mayor, Deputy Mayor here, support this. Thank you very much, great work. Thank you, and that comes to the 16th report of the Corporate Services Committee, Councillor McAllister.

Thank you through the chair. Happy to do the report for the 16th meeting of the Corporate Services Committee. Second last meeting is Mayor’s Chair. So, yeah, I haven’t gotten a request to pull anything.

One through four, I’ll put it on the floor. Anyone want anything separate from Corporate Services? Seeing none, then you’re willing to put it all on the floor? Any comments then with everything now on the floor?

All right, we’ll open that for voting. Opposing vote, motion carries 14. Thank you, on to the 13th report of the Community and Protective Services Committee. I will look to the chair to present that report.

Thank you, Mayor, efficient meeting so far. We’re starting at one, we’re at five. I’d like to, I’m pleased to present the 13th. No, I didn’t jinx anything.

The 13th report of the Community Protective Services Committee. I have one pull request from the Deputy Mayor for item six that’s life’s been, property standards, and tenant support. So I would be willing to put items one through five and seven. Excluding six on the floor.

Okay, anybody want anything else separate rather than six? Go ahead, Councilor Rhonda. Thank you, I’m looking to, I guess, for clarification. For item five, is there an opportunity to vote on the issue around the allocation of spending?

So there’s something specific in the report that is an action item or something that we want to provide direction on or vote against? You can pull that report and then we can actually split it. Thank you, I’ll do that, I’ll pull five, please. So we’ll need five separate too.

Anything else separated? All right, I’ll go to the chair to make a motion. Okay, I’ll move one through four and seven, excluding five and six. Okay, that’s all about five and six.

Any discussion on these items? Go ahead, Councilor McAllister. Thank you, through the chair. I just want to say thank you to staff in terms of the Silverwoods arena.

I’m looking forward to seeing that project. And I just want to say thank you to the work that’s been done to date. Great, there are no other comments. I’m going to open this block of motions for voting.

Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. All right, Councilor, go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. I will put item five on the floor.

That’s the 10th report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee. Yes, so that’s on the floor. Councilor Raman, go ahead. Thank you, and while I do appreciate that the committee came back with a different recommendation to explore or to ask the committee to explore alternatives.

And I do not want to spend a lot of time on this, but I do want to share that. I do find it concerning that the request came in to begin with noting all of the budget pressures that we have currently, thank you. Any other debate on this particular item? Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Like Councilor Raman, I don’t want to spend a lot of time on this either, but I think this has highlighted for me some additional work that we need to do around our advisory committees. I mean, I’m going to point out one thing aside from the spending. I don’t recall Council ever approving logos for advisory committees. We have a city of London logo there, and that should be the logo that’s used when our advisory committees are doing any sort of community engagement.

That was referenced in the report as well. So I’m gonna be looking through this a little more carefully, and I fully intend to bring some changes forward for Council’s consideration around advisory committees. Any other discussion? So this is the committee’s recommendation on the floor by the chair.

We’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Go ahead, Chair.

Thank you, Mayor. That leaves item six, 3.1 lifespan, property standards, and tenant support. I will put that on the floor. Okay, number six is on the floor now.

Look for any speakers, Deputy Mayor Lewis, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. So I’ve asked for this to be pulled. I signaled that committee that I would be asking for this to be pulled.

I will say that the only recommendation in this that I can support is A1 with regard to the ongoing tenant support fair. Colleagues will note that there was a communication forwarded from LMCH as well with respect to the work that’s being done around pest treatment in our buildings. I wanna draw a colleague’s attention, not only to that letter, but I had a conversation with Mr. Chisholm.

There was a deadline missed to correct a typo. So I wanna put that into the public record right now. The communication overreported the number of units impacted in terms of the actual number is 28%. The communication accidentally gave the number for the cleared units percentage, which was 38%.

The tables from that KPI have been circulated to members of council. There is a very important component as well that was circulated. Mr. Chisholm has pointed out to members of the board that life stabilization can certainly work with LMCH around opportunities to access funding through OW and ODSP to support improved housekeeping, pest prep, and other stabilization supports for tenants.

I think it’s really important for folks to understand that rent care to income units in LMCH do not take the entire portion of a tenant’s shelter allowance. It takes a percentage of a tenant’s shelter allowance. And that means if the tenant needs supports to maintain their tenancy, that shelter allowance is the first place that the funding should be looked at to be coming from with respect to the extreme clean process that was being advocated for. Now, I need to focus in on response beyond LMCH.

I’ve heard a lot of people say a great letter from the student at Lifespin, and the presentation was excellent. But this was not a research paper in terms of delving into both sides of the issues in terms of looking at all the factors. LMCH was never contacted. If they had the information that’s been provided to council in terms of the work that we’ve done with new pest control providers being brought online, a second provider in the event that we have capacity issues and are not able to meet requests in a timely manner, the fact that we are moving to a diamond control pattern so that when we treat one unit, we are not just treating one unit, we are treating the units on all four sides of it so that the throughput between cracks in the wall and those kinds of things are being addressed.

These are changes that have been made this year by a board that’s very proactively working on this issue. However, that information was never sought out by Lifespin. And, well, I appreciate the fact that there was a communication from VHA Home Healthcare that while the municipalities have funded the extreme clean program, we did. We extended to funding to the end of a year to backfill the provincial funding that had ended.

And while the funding may have flowed through us as a service provider for the province, it was provincial funding that backed that program in the first place. I really encourage colleagues, and I’m trying to be brief here, I don’t want to ask for more time, that we defeat the request for a public pest control agency being explored, that we defeat the request, and I say defeat the request for a municipal scan of property standards and bylaws and programs because Mr. Catolic informed us at the committee, and I’ve confirmed this with him since. They’re doing ongoing scans of property standards.

They work with other municipalities all the time, and in fact, an update to the property standards bylaw is coming in December of this year because it’s work that they’ve already been doing. So let’s let them finish that work and bring it forward to us for our consideration. Let’s not send them back to the drawing board now. The other piece that I want to really focus in on here, and it’s spoken to in part in the communication for Mr.

Wallace as well from LDI, there is a task force that we have created to work with the landlords and the tenant agencies. Life’s been as a part of it, acorn is a part of it, others are a part of it from the landlord perspective. None of this went through the task force process. None of this, none of these recommendations came forward as a result of a task force.

It came forward as a result of one letter from one agency that quite honestly, with all due respect, didn’t do its full homework. It looked at one aspect of an issue and did not consult on the other 30 seconds of that issue. So I am therefore encouraging colleagues, and I’ll ask for A1 to be called separately and then deal with all the rest, defeat the rest of this, and let’s get on with the actual business of treating pests through our public housing provider the way that the board has been directed to do. Okay, I have Councillor Ploza next.

Thank you, Your Worship, and through you, I’m going to ask for each of these. I used to be called individually as the votes were split on each one at committee, and the vote dispersion did very per member based on the issue. So I’m going to ask that they be called individually. I will say that some of them I did support, some I didn’t, certainly supported AI for AI.

As the Deputy Mayor already said, Mr. Kritolik said that they’re coming back with a report in the near future, and this would actually delay their report as that’s when it’s scheduled for a further date out in this motion. So that’s why I didn’t support that. I would also highlight for members of Council, that part B is to refer the request of this.

We had added back in the business case P15 from the multi-year budget. It would refer it to the budget section, just highlighting that it would then occur and appear for deliberation or something to consider on the budget committee when we get there in a few weeks. So if that’s one way or another that you’re going now, if you want to see it or not, you can make that decision now. It doesn’t mean it can’t come up in a different way later, but that’s in here.

So I was just highlighting that what’s this committee work to another future committee. Councilor McAllister. Thank you and through the chair. I’ll just go through each of these quickly, individually.

I don’t know, I’ve spent some time going back and forth. I’ve spoken more with LMCH. In terms of AI, I do want to see that continue. I had a chance to go to the tenant fair, and I think that’s something worthwhile that I think we’ve got a lot of value in terms of tenant engagement with city staff and vice versa.

So I think that that’s an invaluable resource that we should continue. AI, based on what I’ve heard, and in terms of what staff came back with as well, I’m willing to see that report in December and see what that has. And then if more information’s needed to go back, but I’m not going to support AI right now just because I want to see that first report. In terms of the feasibility of the public extermination program in further discussions with Mr.

Chisholm and LMCH, it’s not something I think we can currently do. There are other avenues I’m going to explore in terms of perhaps getting them someone who’s dedicated to looking after pest control management within LMCH, but that’s something that we need to discuss in terms of budgetary requirements for that. And with B, I know this was a split vote when we had this discussion of the last budget deliberation, but I still think there’s value in that and I want to have that discussion again. This isn’t just in terms of LMCH, I think it’s a wider discussion in the community.

And I’ve definitely had people in my award who saw value in this and utilize these services. I understand it’s a backfill, but I think it’s something we can advocate for for the province to pick back up. But in the meantime, it’s something that really is important in terms of keeping people housed. So I still want to see that one to go to the budget deliberations.

Thank you. Okay, other speakers? Go ahead, Councillor Frara. Thank you, Mayor.

I won’t pass for nine or 10 minutes. I’ll just keep it really brief just to stay efficient. I, like my comments that I made at committee still stay true. I do hear what other council are saying, but I do think it’s worth a shot.

I support the full motion. Any other Councillors? Okay, Councillor Trussa. Like my voted committee, I’m going to be supporting all four parts of this.

One does not seem to be an issue. Complete a municipal scan of property standards with recommendations to enhance enforcement protocols. Now at the committee meeting, I specifically asked staff whether their December report anticipates looking at the very important question of protocols. And the answer was no, it doesn’t.

So despite the fact that some people are suggesting that this is coming back anyway, there’s additional material in here. The protocols are very important. Protocols include things like how the public can submit related complaints. The steps are responding to a complaint, guidelines for staff.

I mean, I don’t want to sort of say what the report should have. But there is something very additional to this protocol piece of it than what Mr. Catolic said they were doing at the committee. And I’ll do respect to some of the statements that have been made here.

And if you want to listen to what I’m saying, I’m directing this to the Deputy Mayor. Okay, we don’t actually, we go through the chair. So Councillor, we don’t actually talk to other Councillors in your comments. You’re making comments about the motion that’s on the floor.

And so you can keep your debate to that, but you’ll go through the chair for any sort of comments. Fair enough, I just want to stress the fact that— No, I’m not done. Keep it that way and we’ll keep going. You can continue your remarks.

Yes, so I made it a point. I made it a specific point to ask the explicit question of staff at the committee. Does your scan is coming back in December, deal with protocols and the answer was no. The answer was no.

So I think that that’s an important point of what we’re trying to get at here. In terms of the public extermination program, hey, we’re not talking about enacting this tonight. And yes, there are a lot of questions that would have to be raised. And quite frankly, this LMCH letter, which we just received, it wasn’t even on the added agenda.

They didn’t even get it in on time for it to be on the added agenda, which is their prerogative. But, you know, this was not, well, it’s true. Okay, now I have to deal with point of orders. So what’s the point of order?

The added communication from LMCH was received in time and it was on the added agenda. We approved it at the start of the council meeting. I corrected a typographical error in the report when I stated that the councilor’s statement is false. Hold on, it’s a point of order.

I’ll review it. No, okay, I know it’s not a personal privilege to get to retract, but I just ruled on the point of order. So because the point of order was related to something on the agenda earlier, I wanted to look at my own eyes. I can confirm that it was on the agenda.

I know that there was circulated some additional language, but it was actually on the added agenda earlier at this meeting. So go ahead, councilor continue with your remarks. I don’t think that there was anything in that letter that really takes away from the fact that this is something that it would be the proper subject of the staff report. Quite the contrary.

Having read through that, it occurred to me that we probably should be pursuing this. And perhaps we should have representatives from the agency attend a future meeting of the committee as it may be constituted in the future. But in any event, this is a very serious problem. We continue to get complaints from tenants about the bug infestation.

We read about it. And quite frankly, whatever is being done, it’s not adequate and it’s not sufficient. So I think the fact that this originated from a private group and didn’t go through some process, I think that we should be happy that we have engaged citizens and engaged residents who are sending us reports to this. We shouldn’t be criticizing them.

We should be thanking them for bringing this to our attention. ‘Cause quite frankly— 30 seconds, councilor— Let’s spend, I’m going to ask for another three minutes. You’re making a motion to give the council for three additional minutes. I need a seconder for that.

Okay, the councilor Hopkins is willing to second. We’re going to do this in the system of this vote. Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Those in the vote motion carries eight to seven.

Okay, a few more minutes, councilor. That’s the time that I stole, just the time. Three minutes and 30 seconds. So I think the request here is not to enact a new agency, it’s to further investigate it.

And I think that that could be done in a couple of different ways, including having the agency come in and talk to us, which I hope they would be willing to do. I think it’s quite frankly, there are a lot of questions about the effectiveness of what it is that they’re doing. And I think that this is something that we owe the tenants. Now, on the question of the VHA home care.

Yeah, that could come up as a separate notice motion during the budget period. And we have the prerogative to do that. We also have the prerogative to send it on now as something we would like to have looked at. Either way, it’s going to land back at the budget committee.

So if you, I think it would be stronger, it would be a better statement to have it as a referral. It would save a little bit of wear and tear on counselors having to make a separate motion. But if you want to defeat B, defeat B, it’s still coming back to the table and there still will be a lot of support. There still will be a lot of support for it.

Now, the public extermination program, the extreme care program, better by law enforcement, are things that tenants need. These are things that our residents need. And I get a little bit worried when we resort to there’s this other committee or task force that counselors aren’t even a member of that don’t even put out public agendas. And then we tried people for not putting something before them.

So I want to thank Lifespin again. This is fine. I think it’s fine for engaged citizens to come to this council through a committee and ask us to do something. And I felt it was a very good report.

I support all four parts of it. And these are things that are very, very badly needed. So again, thank you Lifespin, thank you VHA, thank you Legal Services who also sent us in a letter. And by the way, it’s the people on Legal Services that see the residents at a very bad point in their life.

People don’t go to Legal Services and say, “Hey, I’ve got a great apartment and I love my landlord.” People go to Legal Services probably wants to be in a big day. And when I hear people affiliated with the agency in the media saying things like, “We’re going to need to issue more N5s.” I’m very concerned about that. Because I don’t think we should be blaming the tenants for the conditions in their units, especially if there are structural problems with the building. We didn’t have the benefit of getting the asset management report from this agency this year.

We’ll get that next year. And that’s going to be very interesting. But I think for now, these are all very reasonable requests. 30 seconds.

And I just really hope that we can show the respect for the rank and file tenants who have come together, not just the tenants, but the agencies that support them under very difficult circumstances. I’m talking about VHA, I’m talking about lifespan, and I’m talking about neighborhood legal services. And I want to thank them all for their engagement with the city. And I don’t want to discourage this kind of input.

Your time’s up, Council. Any other speakers? And just so you know, I’ve been asked by a councilor to do all of them separate, so we’re going to do that. But I have Councilor Stevenson and then Councilor Raman.

Thank you. I just wanted to say that I am going to support AI and then know to the rest. At 202 McNay, which is in my ward, and it’s an LMCH building, the pest issues have been horrific. Like my email and my messages are filled with pictures of bugs and bites.

And it got really, really bad. I went there, I visited with them and spoke with LMCH. I was saying like, what can we do? This is a whore.

I’ve got senior ladies sleeping in their car with their apartment right there because they’re being bitten so bad. They told me, LMCH told me and the residents about the new treatment company that they were switching to, about changes that they were making. I’m happy to report that just yesterday, I received an email from a woman who said a terrible time. And she said, she just wanted to let me know that she’s sure that the new company is more expensive and it’s worth whatever you’re paying.

They’re very happy. And she said, it’s a long email, but she said, I can see a light at the end of the tunnel for this fiasco. It has been months, months and months of really difficult time. I’m starting to hear that it’s getting better, that people are seeing hope that these changes are gonna make a difference.

I’ve also, the residents who’ve had issues, they’ve had support impacting up their belongings and taking care of their apartment. That hasn’t been an issue. So thank you to LMCH and it is a terrible time and it does look like it’s getting better. So that’s what I just wanted to share that with colleagues.

Councilor Ramen. Thank you and through you. Yeah, the infestation crisis that we have in our community is just that, it’s a crisis at this point. And I do think that we have work to do and I wanna say thank you to Lifespin for their work to bring this forward.

However, I do not think that bringing this in house is the way to solve the problem and investigating such an option at this point, I don’t think would present us with more viable information to help folks that are in need of help now. So I won’t be supporting that action. I did have a question around A1 in terms of the request to fund the tenant support fair. I’m just wondering what the source of funding would be.

Go to our staff on that. Sir Mathers, you got it. Through your worship. We don’t have a source of funding allocated for that.

Historically, we’ve provided a venue for in space and in kind support for that event. So that’s what we’ve done in the past. Go ahead, Councilor. Thank you through you.

And so presumably that would be the same that it would be an in kind support for that event. Okay, thank you for that clarification. I appreciate that. So, you know, I appreciate Councilor Stevenson in providing us with the information.

She provided us from residents in her ward. I’ll share that I had a chance to visit limber loss just recently and was asked to tour an infested unit. And I did go and met with the family that is living through this right now with deep concern and trauma from the experience right now that they’re going through. So my heart goes out to those in our community and beyond that we do need to find solutions.

And getting information I think is really important right now and it’s organizations like Lifespin and the limber loss chaplaincy who are doing the work of meeting with families and supporting them for this advocacy work. And it’s difficult. I can see the difficult challenge that families are facing having to really advocate for something where they feel like perhaps they’re doing what they can do to manage the issue in their units. But the issue is continuous and ongoing and multiple sprays aren’t helping and all of their things have to be thrown out in order to try to address a problem while you live in boxes, while you wait for a solution that isn’t coming.

And so I do think we have a huge challenge here. It’s something I’ll continue to talk to LMCH about to look for a resolution for this family and others in limber loss that are dealing with this challenge. But obviously we need to do more. So other than what’s in front of us for the referral for the budget ask, I’ll continue to look for opportunities.

I thank my colleagues who are doing the work of serving on LMCH right now. I thank them for the communication provided to us. But obviously there are more actions that need to be taken and I’ll look forward to that December report on upcoming property standards bylaws. Okay, that’s all the speakers I have on this particular matter.

We are going to deal with them all separately as separate votes. Oh, Councilor Pribble, go ahead. So I just want to kick comment. And thank you Lifespin for that report and all the information that was included, which was very informative.

I did support the committee only the AI, the first one. I did not support the other ones. And I did have lengthy core conversation communication with our staff with the other points. And one of the things is that yes, it might not be that everything that’s stated here is going to be included in the report coming back to us before the year end.

But I do think that it’s valuable for us to wait till that report is done and then evaluate it and then look at potential additional requests. But that’s the reason why I didn’t vote for the other ones. I do want to, and this was actually to Q 2025, which is actually longer. So I will be voting no, not besides the first one.

I will support the other ones. I will not, based on the communication I had with our staff and based on the report that’s coming back to us before the year end, thank you. Okay, that’s all the speakers I have. So we’re going to do these one at a time.

And we’re going to start with AI. And the being noted clause is going to be attached to this one, which recognizes that there was correspondence related to this. So we have AI on the floor presented by the chair. We’ll open that one for voting.

Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Next, we’ll do AI, which is the piece about the municipal property standards scan. Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion fails three to 12.

Okay, next we’ll do AI, which is the feasibility of developing and funding a pilot extermination program. You can open that. Closing the vote, motion fails four to 11. And now part B of the motion, which is the referral to the budget process of our previous business case.

Closing the vote, motion carries eight to seven. Back to you chair, nightmare. That concludes the 13th report of the Community and Protective Services Committee. That concludes the committee, yes, Councilor Pribble?

Actually voted wrong, the last one. And I just stated, am I speech dead? Sorry, I know, I’m going to go through the reconsideration process. Okay, Councilor Pribble, you are on the winning side of the vote, which means you can move, reconsideration yourself, if you felt like you voted incorrectly.

Just checking the debatability of the different components of reconsideration, so just a hang tight. I do have one question, because I don’t know why my screen is frozen right now. The last one we voted on, my answer should have been no. I can’t get to it.

  • You voted yes for that. You’re one of the seven. As you voted, you’re one of the seven. Sorry, my screen is frozen, so I don’t know, if in your— - Sorry.

If I voted no, then that’s accurate. That’s what it says. Oh, I’m B. Sorry, you meant B, okay, yeah, sorry.

Sorry, my screen is frozen, so I cannot see it. If the last one I voted no, then it is correct. That’s accurate. Yes, then you’re fine.

Okay, thank you, we’re all good. Thank you. Great, we’re gonna proceed then. Added reports, sorry, I thought you were talking about the one that you were on the winning side of.

Added reports. We have one report from Council on closed session, Councilor McAllister will rise and present that report. I always seem to get stuck with these. A lot of them are from corporate services, that’s fair.

So this is for item one, land exchange 108 and 112 Clark Road, that as a procedural matter, pursuant to section 239, subsection six of the Municipal Act, 2001, 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 a vote in public session. That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance supports on the advice of the Director of Realty Services with respect to a portion of city owned property being 108 Clark Road, further described as parts one, two and five on the draft plan and one 12 Clark Road, further described as parts seven, eight and nine on the draft plan road, located in the city of London County of Middlesex, the subject properties, the exchange of lands as appendix B between the city and U-Haul company Canada, limited and U-Haul company Canada be approved for nominal consideration. Number two, license agreement, municipal parking lot number 15, 299 King Street, that as a 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 a vote in public session. That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance supports on the advice of the Director of Realty Services with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager planning and economic development and the general manager and CEO, RBC place with respect to the license agreement between the corporation and the city of London and Holloway lodging limited partnership for the license use of municipal parking lot number 15, known as municipally, known municipally as 299 King Street, license agreement, the license as appendix A between the corporation of the city of London and Holloway lodging limited partnership be approved subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement and that progress was made with respect to items 4.1, 4.2, 4.5, and 4.6, as noted on the public agenda, 6.1/14 CWC, 6.1/16 SPPC, 6.1-16 CSC, and 6.1-13 CPSC.

Okay, thanks Councillor, you can stay there. Okay, so on these two, we’re just gonna do them together and that’s moved by the Councillor, so is there any discussion on these two pieces? We’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero, noting that Councillor Van Merberg indicated he was leaving the meeting.

Councillor Trost has also indicating he’s leaving the meeting. Okay, so that’s, bird matters are non-increased, is there any inquiries, seeing none, no emergent motions, seeing none. We’re on to bylaws, we’re gonna do the bylaws in the following order. We’re gonna do the bylaw that I brought directly to council because it requires a different voting threshold.

We’re gonna do the East London Link expropriation, then we’re gonna do the item that Councillor Cuddy had the pecuniary interest on, which is bill 375, note that down Councillor. And then we’re gonna do all the remaining bills, and I’ll just note that bill number 379 is gonna only gonna have two readings because it’s a drainage one, so we’ll do two now, figure the other one out later. So that’s the, yeah, so that’s how we’re gonna do it. So the first one is by hand because colleagues will recall, if you recall the previous direction that was given that council unanimously supported me, bringing these affordable housing bylaws for directly to council for our expediency, this is one of those that council unanimously said, you were happy to do it this way.

Any debate on this would be at second reading, though, I’ll just let colleagues know, and we’ll vote on this one by hand. So look for a move and a seconder for bill number 380, which is the by-law brought directly here by me for homes unlimited and Warner Place. Moved by Councillor Cudi, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. So on first reading, we do by hand, or we do it with no debate.

All those in favor by hand of this. Any opposed? A motion carried. Okay, second reading, I need to move on to seconder.

I’m gonna try to use the same over and seconder, yes. Councillor Cudi and Deputy Mayor Lewis are willing to do it all the way through. Second reading, any debate or discussion on this? Okay, all those in favor by hand?

Any opposed? Motion carried. Okay, third and final reading, same mover and seconder. Councillor Cudi and Deputy Mayor Lewis.

All those in favor by hand? Any opposed? Motion carried. Okay, that one’s complete.

All the rest of them will be done in the system. The next bill we will deal with is related to the East London Lake expropriation that we had the really fun part of the meeting at the start. That is bill 362. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for bill 362.

Moved by Councillor Cudi, seconded by Councillor Pribble, and you will be the mover and seconder all the way through. So this is first reading, so we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to one. And now we’ll do second reading, same mover and seconder.

Any debate on second reading? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to one. Okay, third reading is the same mover and seconder, and we will open that for voting.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to one. Okay, next we’ll do bill 375, which is the one pulled separately for Councillor Cudi. That is 313 to 323 Horton. We’ll look for a mover and a seconder for this one.

Moved by Councillor Lehman, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. And if you will go all the way through, I’d appreciate that. We’ll open first reading for voting. And carries 12 to zero with one.

All right, second reading, same mover and seconder. See if there’s any debate on second reading. Okay, seeing none, then we’ll open second reading for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to zero with one.

And third reading, same mover and seconder. We will open third reading as soon as it’s ready. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to zero with one. Okay, and now we’re gonna do everything that’s left.

And I’ll just note for colleagues, bill 379 will only have two readings that won’t be included in the third reading. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder of the remaining bylaws. Moved by Councillor McAllister, seconded by Councillor Cudi. We’ll open first reading as soon as it’s ready.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Okay, second reading, same mover and seconder. We’ll see if there’s any discussion on all of these bylaws. Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Third and final reading of these sets of bylaws, same mover and seconder. We’ll open third reading for voting as soon as it’s ready. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero.

Okay, that brings us to the end of this particular meeting. I’ll look for a motion to adjourn. Moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Cudi. We’re gonna do this by hand.

All those in favor of adjournment. Motion carries. Thank you, we’re adjourned.