Open Council

1st Meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

Open Council

1st Meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

December 10, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

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

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED Councillor J. Pribil discloses a pecuniary interest in item 2.1, having to do with Film London - LEDC Purchase of Service Agreement Amendment by indicating that his son is contemplating seeking project support from Film London.

2.   Consent

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Consent Items 2.2 to 2.3 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

2.2   10th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee

2024-12-10 Submission - DIACAC Report

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the 10th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee from its meeting held on November 14, 2024 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.3   12th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee

2024-12-10 Submission - ITCAC Report

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the 12th Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee from its meeting held on November 20, 2024 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.1   Film London - LEDC Purchase of Service Agreement Amendment

2024-12-10 Staff Report - Film London LEDC Purchase of Service

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the proposed amending by-law as appended to the staff report dated December 9, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2024 to amend By-law No. A.-8441-4 being “A by-law to authorize a Purchase of Services Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and the London Economic Development Corporation; and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement” to:

a)    an amending agreement (Schedule “A2”) BE AUTHORIZED and BE APPROVED between The Corporation of the City of London and the London Economic Development Corporation for the purpose of extending funding for Film London; and

b)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the amending agreement.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   Not to be heard before 1:00 PM - Public Participation Meeting - Final Report - 2024 Ward Boundary Review

2024 -12-10 Staff Report - Final Report 2024 Ward Boundary Review

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That with respect to the 2024 Ward Boundary Review, the following actions be taken:

a)       the boundaries for the fourteen (14) electoral wards and detailed in Final Option 1, as appended to the staff reportand contained within the Final Report – 2024 Ward Boundary Review, BE APPROVED for the City of London, effective November 15, 2026;

b)       Final Option 1 BE APPROVED in principle, with the fifteen (15) homes on the north side of Springbank Drive — between The Coves Environmentally Significant Area, Greenside Avenue, and the Canadian National Railway to be retained with proposed Ward 11 as a minor amendment to retain a community of interest;

c)       Final Option 1 BE APPROVED in principle, with a minor amendment to the boundary between proposed Ward 1 and proposed Ward 11 so that the area contained between Wellington Road South and the Canadian National Railway adjacent to Adelaide Street South (Rowntree Area) south to Commissioner Road East be incorporated into proposed Ward 11 to better reflect communities of interest and balancing population; it being noted that this amendment will return to Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on January 14, 2025 with a report that clarifies the population impact of that change for final approval;

d)       Final Option 1 BE APPROVED in principle, with a minor amendment to the boundary between proposed Ward 1 and proposed Ward 4 so that the area contained within Oxford Street East, to Highbury Avenue North, to Canadian Pacific Railway, to Adelaide Street North be incorporated into proposed Ward 4 to better reflect communities of interest and balancing population; it being noted that this amendment will return to Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on January 14, 2025 with a report that clarifies the population impact of that change for final approval.

e)       the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a by-law to enact the boundaries detailed in Final Option 1, as amended, to the December 17, 2024 meeting of Municipal Council; and

f)       the Final Report – 2024 Ward Boundary Review, dated December 10, 2024 and the Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Final Report as appended the staff report as Appendix ‘A’ BE RECEIVED.

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a presentation from Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. with respect to this matter;

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

  • a communication dated October 17, 2024 from B. Mejia, Executive Director, Argyle BIA;

  • a communication dated December 1, 2024 from R. Van Overberghe;

  • a communication from J. Boyce;

  • a communication dated December 10, 2024 from Councillor S. Franke;

  • a communication dated December 9, 2024 from S. Levin, President, Orchard Park/Sherwood Forest Neighbourhood Association;

  • a communication from G. Faul; and

  • a communication dated December 9, 2024 from Councillor A. Hopkins;

it being pointed out that the following individuals made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting with respect to this matter:

  • D. Boyce;

  • J. Boyce;

  • G. Faul; and

  • G. Warren;

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the motion be amended to read as follows:

That Final Option 1 BE APPROVED in principle, with a minor amendment to the boundary between the proposed Ward 1 and proposed Ward 14 so that the area contained between Clarke Rd, Canadian National Railway, the Eastern City Limit, Hamilton Rd to the Thames River be incorporated into the proposed Ward 14 to better reflect communities of interest;

it being noted that this amendment will return to Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on January 14, 2025 with a report that clarifies the population impact of that change for final approval.

Motion Failed (6 to 9)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by D. Ferreira

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

the fifteen (15) homes on the north side of Springbank Dr — between The Coves, Greenside Ave, and the Canadian National Railway — BE RETAINED with proposed Ward 11 as a minor amendment to retain a community of interest.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That Final Option 1 BE APPROVED in principle, with a minor amendment to the boundary between proposed Ward 1 and proposed Ward 11 so that the area contained between Wellington Rd S and the Canadian National Railway adjacent to Adelaide St S (Rowntree Area) south to Commissioner Rd E be incorporated into proposed Ward 11 to better reflect communities of interest and balancing population;  it being noted that this amendment will return to Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on January 14, 2025 with a report that clarifies the population impact of that change for final approval.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by E. Peloza

That Final Option 1 BE APPROVED in principle, with a minor amendment to the boundary between proposed Ward 1 and proposed Ward 4 so that the area contained within Oxford St E, to Highbury Ave N, to Canadian Pacific Railway, to Adelaide St N be incorporated into proposed Ward 4 to better reflect communities of interest and balancing population;

it being noted that this amendment will return to Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on January 14, 2025 with a report that clarifies the population impact of that change for final approval.

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by D. Ferreira

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

following the adoption of ward boundaries by by-law and the completion of the appeal period, or a decision by the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT), Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to explore naming convention options for the final ward boundaries, provide a report outlining these options to Council for their consideration and community engagement with sufficient time for the 2026 municipal elections.

Motion Failed (2 to 12)

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   London Convention Centre Corporation (RBC Place London) By-law Update and Appointments

2024-12-10 Staff Report - London Convention Centre Corporation RBC Place-By-law Update and Appointments

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the following actions be taken with respect to London Convention Centre Corporation (RBC Place) By-law Update and Appointments:

a)    the proposed by-law appended as Appendix ‘B’ to the staff report dated December 10, 2024 A by-law to amend By-law No. A-6866-270, as amended, respecting the London Convention Centre Corporation BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2024, to update references to the Board, section 4, and section 5(2) term;

b)    the following appointments to the Board of Directors BE CONFIRMED:

i)    Mary Lynn Stuckey (Health Care) as a Class 2 Board member for the term ending November 30, 2026;

ii)   Ryan Bennett (Finance) as a Class 1 Board member for the term ending November 30, 2025;

iii)   Kara Heddle (Communications) as a Class 1 Board member for the term ending November 30, 2025;

iv)   Sara De Candido (Health Care) as a Class 2 Board member for the term ending November 30, 2026; and

v)    Jeffrey Floyd (Music/Business) as a Class 3 Board member for the term ending November 30, 2026; and

c)    on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the report dated December 10, 2024 respect to the London Convention Centre Corporation (RBC Place) By-law Update and Appointments, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 0)

4.2   Growth Management Implementation Strategy and Municipal Service and Financing Agreements Policy Amendments

2024-12-10 Staff Report - GMIS and MSFA

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated December 10, 2024 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council Meeting to be held on December 17, 2024, to amend By-law  No. CPOL.-391-152, being A by-law to enact a new Council policy entitled “Municipal Service and Financing Agreements” by deleting and replacing Schedule “A”;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to identify and incorporate eligible growth infrastructure projects located within priority intensification areas of the Built Area Boundary into the Growth Management Implementation Strategy upon the completion of the 2028 Development Charges Background Study, it being noted that until approval of the 2028 DC Background Study, the Built Area Works program can continue to be availed of for the delivery of eligible municipal infrastructure works within the Built Area;

c)    the changes to the 2008 Growth Management Implementation Strategy principles to align with amendments in clause b) above and growth policies of The London Plan BE APPROVED by Municipal Council;

d)   the correspondence from Zelinka Priamo regarding 3095 and 3105 Bostwick Road (Talbot Village) BE REFERRED for consideration during the 2026 Growth Management Implementation Strategy process; and

e)    the report BE RECEIVED for information.

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard a verbal delegation from M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute with respect to this matter.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the delegation request from M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute BE APPROVED to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by C. Rahman

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

the correspondence from Zelinka Priamo regarding 3095 and 3105 Bostwick Road (Talbot Village) BE REFERRED for consideration during the 2026 Growth Management Implementation Strategy process.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

4.3   Housing Accelerator Fund - First Annual Update

2024-12-10 Staff Report - Housing Acceserator Fund

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the report regarding the Housing Accelerator Fund - First Annual Update BE RECEIVED for information;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated December 5, 2024 from C. Kulchycki, Senior Associate, Zelinka Priamo Ltd. with respect to this matter;

it being further noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard a verbal delegation from M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the delegation request from M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute BE APPROVED to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential 

None.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 4:38 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (3 hours, 53 minutes)

[16:52] Good afternoon, colleagues. I am going to call the first meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to Order. It being now 101 PM. I’ll advise colleagues that Councilor Hillier and Councilor Van Mirbergen are with us remotely today. All other Councilors are in chambers. And as always, we want to begin by acknowledging that the city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabic, the Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwak, and Adawanda in Peoples. And we honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home.

[17:27] The city of London is also currently home to many First Nation, Métis, and New York peoples. And as representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The city of London is also committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact SPPC@london.ca or phone 519 661. 2489, extension 2425. Colleagues, I am going to start with disclosures of pecuniary interest, and I’ll go to Councilor Pribble.

[18:05] Thank you, Chair. And it is regarding 2.1 film London. And I have a deemed interest on the basis that my son is contemplating seeking a project support from film London. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Pribble. So noted. So we will deal with 2.1 separate in the consent agenda. Does anyone need anything else dealt with separately for pecuniary interest? Seeing none, then we will move on to consent. We have 2.1 that needs to be dealt with separately. I’m looking to see if there’s a mover for 2.2 and 2.3, moved by Councilor Cuddy and seconded by Councilor Palosa.

[18:44] Those are the 10th and 12th reports of the diversity inclusion and anti-oppression and the integrated transportation committees respectfully. So I look for any discussion on that. And seeing none, I will ask the clerk to open the vote on 2.2 and 2.3 of the consent agenda. Closing the vote.

[19:25] The motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you colleagues. Now we will deal with 2.1 where we have a conflict declared by Councilor Pribble. 2.1 is the film London LEDC purchase of service agreement amendment. And I’ll look to see if there’s a mover and a seconder for that. Moved by Councilor Palosa and seconded by Councilor Layman. So that is on the floor and we’re open the floor now to any discussion on this. Seeing none, Councilor Stevenson. Thank you. I want to say I’m not going to be supporting this and it’s really not that I’m against the investment at all.

[19:58] It’s the issue that I had with the fact that there’s no budget available to the public for the LEDC contract. So at $200,000 a month without even having the most basic budget of where that money is going and there’s not a requirement for the employees to be on the sunshine list. I will not be supporting funding going forward that is not open and transparent to the public. Looking, Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, Mr. Chair, I do have a question through you, maybe to staff in terms of if this is approved, how will the reporting be given back to Council?

[20:40] ‘Cause it is a substantial amount of money. It is permanent now. I know in the past it wasn’t, but I’d like to have a better idea on the reporting mechanism. Mr. Mathers. Through the chair. So this would be reported on with all the other LEDC components and metrics outlined in their agreement as part of their annual report back to committee council. Councilor Hopkins. So I guess we can look to a LEDC at that time when they come to us for updates, thank you.

[21:17] Other speakers? Seeing none, then I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Voting the vote, motion carries 13 to one with one recuse. Thank you colleagues, that dispenses with our scheduled, or sorry, with our consent.

[21:51] We do have a scheduled item that is not to be heard before one PM, we’re past one PM, so we can deal with that. That is with respect to the award boundary review. And we have our consultant Watson Association, Watson and associates economics communists. Wow, my tongue is not working properly today. Here to present to us as well, we have a number of communications and this will have a public participation meeting component of it as well. So there may be some folks in the gallery who wish to speak to this.

[22:24] So we will go first to our consultant for a presentation. Then I’ll look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. We can hear from those who wish to speak to us at that point, and then we will look for some motions to move forward on that. So we will start when our consultants are ready with the presentation from Watson and associates. Can we just get, sorry, just before you start, can we get to your microphone so that folks can hear you everywhere?

[23:19] Technology to deal with. Good afternoon, I’m happy to be here to walk through our final options which have been presented to you in a fairly lengthy document. This is a very quick overview of what’s in that document for consideration this afternoon. Figure out how I’m doing this here. Anyway, sorry. This has been a process that’s been going on since June with two phases of consultation with the public.

[23:57] First of all, about the general approach to taking the review and secondly, dealing with a number of preliminary options. The information on the screen now tells you a little bit about the responses we got in that second phase of activity which is a standard process that we use to help counsel decide where we’ve heard it from and the kinds of responses we get. Again, more detail in the bigger document. In that second round of consultation where we had preliminary options, we did hear a number of things that caused us to rethink some of the ideas in some of the options.

[24:39] And on the screen, you can see the version of what was called preliminary option one which we have adjusted in the light of comments made by members of council and members of the community and now present a final option based on that kind of response and the perspectives that were gathered in there. This allowed us to come back with a proposal which we feel is a much more balanced approach to the distribution of population across the city while paying considerable attention in all of this to the communities of interest that are found across the city.

[25:19] The very diverse collection of neighborhoods and communities are addressed in this version that we call final option one. And this again, we’ve covered that in the report finding a better approach to the principles that we deal with. And there are of course five guiding principles that have been part of this review from virtually day one. And our role has been to try to blend those together to come up with a proposal for the governance of the city of London in the next election and beyond that.

[25:56] So again, the adjusted preliminary option was largely driven by the kinds of concerns that we heard in the consultation that took place in October. Preliminary, sorry, final option two is largely drawn from what was called preliminary option three. So we’ll try to keep our numbers straight here. So the second option, the one that’s on the screen now has a major change on the city’s west side related to trying to meet these principles.

[26:29] And as you can see, it’s a very well balanced distribution of wards across the city, both in terms of what we know now and in anticipation of the 2025 election. Things get a little bit changed by 2030, but that of course is part of the issue of growth across the city. So again, in the main report, we present reasons why this, we believe, is a plausible option to put before you for your decision as to how the city should be run in the next election.

[27:09] So this is now in your hands, if I can put it that way. Those two options are the ones that we have considered and consulted on and taken back to our own empirical work and other kinds of sources to come up with two proposals that we believe will serve the interests of London going into the next two elections, at least. There was some support in the early— sorry, in that second round for what was called preliminary option four, which has on the face of it a lot of appeal because of the distribution of population, probably in some ways more successful than the other two.

[27:52] But the problem was to get to that, we ended up with some very unacceptable community of interest arrangements, which is why on the face of it, it had some appeal. But eventually, we determined that it failed to meet the principal that was largely endorsed across the community, namely that communities of interest are a significant part of what we would want to look at. So a couple of things are important here. And I think some of this is irrelevant in one sense because you’re not looking at changing the composition of your council.

[28:33] You’re at 15 members. You do have the power to change that. That has never been part of this review. And so we have not considered that as a component, nor is the second bullet one that is directly relevant. In other words, we can’t change how the mayor is elected. And we’ve heard no support at all for the idea of electing 14 councillors at large across the city. So again, it’s feasible under legislation, but not something we would consider as an approach to governing your city.

[29:07] Leaving us then with the third bullet, your capacity under legislation to divide or redivide the municipality into wards or to dissolve the existing wards. So we’re here to deal with that idea of redividing the municipality in another fashion. So my goal today is to encourage you to take action on this report, on this submission. You can choose one of the recommended options. There are two.

[29:40] We are convinced that both of those are defensible in the event that a by-law to change to one of those was appealed. We have every confidence that either one of those is sustainable, meets the guiding principles that we have been working with from day one. And while some of it may be a little different to what you have now, we believe that on the whole, they are both viable alternatives for the city of London going forward. So a clean example today would be, say, pick option X.

[30:15] And we come back with a by-law that gives you the details of those boundaries. The other option, of course, on the list there would be to ask for some changes or revisions. But I hesitate to point out that we’re looking at very minor changes. Anything that would ultimately change the complexion of award in a significant way, I think would probably require further consultation by the consulting team would require the investigation of the implications of those changes around the guiding principles.

[30:51] And in fact, to come back and say, does it work as well as the two alternatives that are here? We can’t guarantee that off the cuff, so we would need to have some discussion. And I think the other risk in here, of course, is that any attempt by council at this point to try to redraw the lines is risky. I put it very simply that if indeed it appears that council is using this opportunity to make some changes that don’t, for example, correspond to the guiding principles, or that could be construed as, in some ways, be blunt about it, in some ways self-interest, it would be a problem for that by-law.

[31:32] It could be appealed. And quite frankly, if it’s a change that has been made by council that we have never considered or the community has never considered, we could not endorse it. You’d be on your own to try to defend a change of that sort made on the fly, if I can put it that way. So that’s just a statement of expectation that we need to be aware of. That changes that are duly considered, that would be appropriate. And we could come back on that, if you like, through some questions.

[32:05] So obviously, you could adopt a by-law to dissolve the words. I don’t think that’s on the agenda today. Or you could do nothing. You could just basically say, all right, we’ve got a system, let’s just leave it. The dilemma there, of course, is that failure to act is, in a sense, an action. And again, under legislation, a failure to act in response to this could be the basis for a petition from the community requesting you to make a change. And that has happened in a number of municipalities where a council has basically said, let’s just leave it.

[32:43] And residents have come forward and say, no, we want you to make a change. And council is then faced with the dilemma, all right, do we pick one of these new alternatives? Do we go through the whole exercise again? Or do we, in so many words, say thanks, but no thanks, and leave it, at that decision to do nothing in face of a petition is also open to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal. So as I said, if you choose to implement a new word boundaries, then a by-law would be required.

[33:18] Watson and Associates are prepared to do that at fairly short notice to put it before you to have approval. And once that by-law is approved, then that requires notification to the community. And that by-law could be open to appeal, as I suggested earlier. So there’s a timeline in there. The announced publication of the change of the by-law could be appealed within a 45-day period. Then it would go before, go into the hopper, if you will, at the Ontario Land Tribunal, and would need to be dealt with by that tribunal.

[33:58] Whatever boundaries are in place at the end of 2025 are the boundaries that will be operative in the 2026 election. So we’ve got some time here, but if there is an appeal, that that certainly makes it more difficult to make any change at all stop right there, if that’s appropriate. Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Williamson. We’re going to ask you to stand by. You’re welcome to be seated, of course. We are going to go to the public to hear comments and feedback from them before we come back.

[34:34] When we come back, there may be some questions for you, some motions that come forward on the floor where we may need to ask you to respond as to whether you feel it meets a minor threshold or not. So we’ll just ask you to stand by and assist us with that process as we move forward. I’m going to take a little bit of an unusual procedural step here just before we look to open the PPM, because members of the public may wish to comment on this. There was an addition by Councillor Frank on the added agenda, and there was circulated to Council by Councillor McAllister, but did not make the added agenda deadline for the public to see.

[35:16] I’m going to go to both Councillors, and I’m going to ask you to keep it very brief, please. Very brief. We don’t need the logic or rationale behind it right now. But just to give you a chance to share with the public the change that you are going to propose as a motion moving forward should they wish to comment on that. So Councillor Frank, I will go to you first. If you can just very quickly, in like one minute, just let us know what you’re intending to put on the floor. Yes, happy to. And my letter is included on the added agenda. People are able to pull it up.

[35:49] But it’s simply, at the north end of Ward 11, there’s a small little area of about 15 homes between Spring Bank, Greenside, and the railway that has been pulled into Ward 13 in both scenarios. And given that the train berm completely blocks those 15 homes from the adjacent Ward 13 neighborhood, which is River Forks, it didn’t make sense to me to retain that just because there’s absolutely no sense of community identity. And so the motion is just to keep those 15 homes in either scenario that passes in Ward 11. Thank you for that.

[36:24] And Councillor McAllister, same situation. If you can just very quickly and amend it or so, indicate just for the public’s information, the changes that you are going to request with regard to your award. Yeah, happy to do so. So with option one, I do have two proposals. The first one is to carve out Clark Gore Hamilton Road area, which is predominantly industrial. And that would remain in Ward 14, as was previously in the options. And then I’m also looking to move, there’s the Wellington to train track section.

[37:02] So the southern part is baseline, but it’s Wellington baseline. And then the train tracks that go off of West Minister, known as the Roan tree area, and that would be incorporated into Ward 11. For option two, this would be to retain the Gore Hamilton Clark area. This is the subdivision around East Park. And then the other part of option two would be the same that I just spoke of with option one, which is the Wellington baseline train track area, Roan tree, which would also be incorporated into Ward 11.

[37:36] Thank you, Councillors, just so that the public has those and to be aware that there could be a minor change is presented toward 11 and toward one. So at Ward one and 14. So, and in the case of the amendment from Councillor Frank, it would have a minor impact on Ward 13, but as she indicated, it’s 15 homes. So it’s a relatively minor tweak there. So now members of the public are aware, there are two Councillors who are going to suggest a couple of what they feel are minor changes to their to ward boundaries that may impact those Ward 11, 13 and Ward one and 14 areas.

[38:16] Now I’m going to look for a motion to open the public participation meeting moved by Councillor Ferreira and seconded by Councillor Hopkins. And I will ask the clerk to open the vote on that. Votes, yes. Mr. Mayor Bergen. A vote, yes.

[38:55] Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you, colleagues. So for those in the gallery, we’re going to move to a public participation process now. So those who wish to speak to the word boundary review item that’s on the floor, I’d ask you to come to a microphone, give us your name and you have five minutes to present to us your feedback around this item. And I’ll just go through until we’re out of speakers and then we will move back into the council portion of the debate. So welcome, sir, if you can give us your name and when you’re ready to go ahead, we will give you five minutes.

[39:29] All right, can you hear me? My name’s Darren Boyce. So now, good afternoon, committee and members of city council, as well as residents of London. My name is Darren Boyce. I’m a resident of ward nine. I was raised in a rural area just outside Lambeth and have recently moved back to the area to start a family, wanting my children to experience the same community spirit that shaped my own upbringing. I’m here today to urgently request that you reject consultant option two, which fragments the Lambeth community as well as its surrounding rural areas into three electoral districts.

[40:05] For more than two centuries, we’ve been a unified community with shared values, concerns, and local institutions. The division of Lambeth and its surrounding rural areas in the proposed option two would disrupt this cohesion and undermine our ability to effectively advocate for our needs. This boundary review is supposed to respect communities of interest, areas that share common goals. Unfortunately, option two does not take Lambeth’s communities deep historical social and economic ties into account. Next, while voting parity is important, boundaries should not be drawn based on population alone.

[40:40] Effective representation means understanding, reflecting the needs, values, and identity of a community. Lambeth has a strong culture and social connection that cannot be reduced to mere numbers. The option of two proposal dilutes this Lambeth area voice. Furthermore, Lambeth has long had to fight for a recognition from the city. Our residents have historically had to push harder for resources and representation, as well as reject heavy-handed policies that have come from the city. See the history of the sewage plant proposals in the area, even recent threats to close the library. Since amalgamation, there has been a sense that Lambeth’s interests are often sidelined by the city.

[41:17] Selecting option two would perpetuate that trend and further distance us from effective representation. Finally, it’s important to remember that this report and recommendations we’re discussing today were created by outside consultants, not city council and its staff. The consultants have provided their recommendations, but the ultimate decision lies with you, the elected representatives of our city. Council does not have to accept these proposals as is, and is free to make amendments to ensure that the boundaries reflect the needs of the communities and not just population numbers. I urge council and this committee to make no changes, or if they have to adopt option one, which would keep Lambeth whole as a voting community.

[41:59] If option one is not feasible, then I ask you to amend option two to better reflect the unique identity that needs, and the needs of Lambeth. Preserving Lambeth is a single award ensures we continue to have a strong unified voice at City Hall, and that our community remains effectively represented. Decisions such as these will affect our community for years to come. A fragmented Lambeth risk losing the collective strength that has enabled us to advocate for our interests effectively. I trust this committee and council will take into account the desires of my fellow residents who have clearly expressed a preference for keeping Lambeth united, and will make the proper decisions to protect our community’s cohesion, and effective representation.

[42:36] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Boyce, and we’ll look for other speakers on this now. Okay, my name is Joan Boyce. I’m related to him. I’m a resident of Deckard Drive, which is south of the borough of Lambeth. I would like to comment on the fact that I’m very concerned with what the consultants have presented to you.

[43:14] I would ask you to look at it very closely. I know there are several priorities, which they say that they have followed, but it looks to me like they have just looked at population numbers and not the societal fabric of the community. I am mostly concerned about Lambeth, but I think this has been found in several other areas of the city. In the initial reports, two of the options were running directly down Main Street in Lambeth.

[43:49] Half of our village would be in one ward, half in the other. Then when they did the final options, number two puts the word boundary down Colonel Talbot Road, which again divides the community. I would like to ask if the people who did this project, ever looked at the different parts of the city, the communities, the neighborhoods, which are very important.

[44:25] In the London strengthening neighborhoods initiative, it was stated that the neighborhoods or communities within the city are one of the most important parts that make up a vibrant and excellent city. I advise to you that the consultants, whether they say so or not, have never looked at but one guiding principle, and that is population parity. In the guiding principles of ward design, balancing population numbers, when it states in this guide, it says that existing and future communities of interest should not be fragmented.

[45:12] And I also quote it may be necessary to place a higher priority on those other than population parodies, such as respecting a community of interest. 65% of the public participants indicated that their top priority was keeping communities intact. And I submit that this was not looked at, this was not considered at all. Since amalgamation, the rural blambas had had a time, trying to remain as a viable community.

[45:54] But I must admit that we have been successful. I ask you to come out and see what we have done. We have a festival in the fall, which runs for most of the week after Labor Day. It is all put on by community people who are volunteers. We have our street lights on Main Street, which I must admit the consultants didn’t realize that Warren Cliff Road ended just outside of Lambeth, and it became Main Street.

[46:27] Main Street to me means that there is a community. They did not seem to realize that. I also say that we have put up our own neighborhood signs after they were torn down when we were amalgamated into the city. And the city after that realized that neighborhoods were very important in the city. The strengthening neighborhood initiative was paid for by the taxpayers, and it did a great deal to try to support neighborhoods within the city.

[47:01] I submit that this, especially in our area, that this is tearing this whole project apart and not giving us proper representation within the city. We will be totally fragmented and have no voice whatsoever. So I ask you to, if you are interested, come out and see our community. We are viable, we are vibrant, and we’re going to try to stay that way. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Boyce.

[47:33] And I promise we won’t hold the fact that you’re related to the previous speaker against you. And we’ll look for the next speaker. Welcome, sir. Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor and members of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, my name is Jeffrey Fall. I’m a resident of Ward nine. And today, of course you’ve heard, and may hear more messages voicing support for option one, and I am here to do the same. I am here to, speaking not only on my own behalf, I’m here with the support and the direction from the Lambeth Harvest Festival Committee, Lambeth Legion Branch 501, the Lambeth Lions Club, the Rotary Club of London, Lambeth and Westminster Historical Association.

[48:19] The members of these groups are the business owners, the military veterans, the volunteers, and the engaged residents of the community who drive the growth preservation and the celebration of a vibrant life of lovely Lambeth. They ask me to convey to you their strong support for option one and their firm rejection of option two. Option one, I think as the consultants have pointed out, option one represents a highly effective means of moving the entire city and Lambeth and area, particularly to the core objective of awards, boundary review exercise, which is of course effective representation.

[48:56] Option one guides Ward representation by realigning the rural areas of South London for more efficient effective administration in 2025 and for the foreseeable future. It guides distribution of Ward populations in East London, it aligns the wards of North and West London all for the foreseeable future. Option one can be implemented in 2025 without major disruption, maintains existing communities and delivers effective representation to the current London communities. The option model also contains within it the flexibility for city staff through council to amend a Ward population pockets as may be needed by the evolving growth of the city.

[49:40] Without generating disruption, option one meets the needs of London in 2025 and going forward and has the administrative capacity to meet the needs of the entire city well into the foreseeable future. In choosing option one, this final report from the consultants, Watkins and Associates, economists limited sets out a path for city staff to monitor population trends over the next decade, make administrative adjustments to the boundaries of these wards and where they may stray too far from effective representation and to balance councilor workloads in a manner that respects their time and dedication to representing their constituents.

[50:17] Adopting option one represents a win for residents of London in all their unique and valued neighborhoods for the councilors and for city staff. You have received written and oral presentations describing a strong land with community, its history and personal bonds. Council has surely recognized difficulties of option two imposes upon this community in terms of organizing and coordinating representation for Lambeth groups, their routine work and with the London Police Services Board, the London Roads and Traffic Enforcement and Management.

[50:53] Layers of communication and complexity arise when resolving local issues within, here I’ll give Lambeth an area as an example, where residents and volunteers need to deal with as many as three different city councilors on a single local matter. Even something as straightforward and traditional as Lambeth’s annual harvest fest event spans venues across the breadth of Lambeth an area. Permits are needed, traffic needs rerouting, glitches arise and questions need answering. Currently one councilor who actively participates in this four day event is a single point of contact for resolution and assistance.

[51:34] When things go off the rail at any venue, community groups and residents and volunteers know who to speak to, who to call and city staff in fact can also readily engage with the responsible councilor. When road design, if I can just give you an example of recent issues, when road design feature adjustments had to be made to Main Street recently because vehicle crashes, it did not require us liaising with multiple councilors to get those dangerous bunkers removed. When the splash pad at Saturn Park several years ago needed adjustment in water infrastructure, it was not necessary to coordinate with multiple councilors.

[52:14] Similarly, pardon me, when city staff assessed possible locations for a possible skate park in Lambeth, they coordinated through a single councilor and Lambeth residents also had only a single point of contact to make their voices heard on the matter. You see, it’s not just about civic pride or neighborhood cohesion, although these matters should never ever be given short thrift. It’s about effective representation, efficient governance, transparency and accessibility for everyone, seeking solutions to problems, working together to solve those problems.

[52:46] It’s about the ability of a ward concert to represent a defined community efficiently and effectively. Option one is the best approach for now and for the foreseeable future. Option one incorporates the flexibility for city staff to monitor and adjust in the years ahead. Option two is a solution looking for a problem that does not yet exist. And by that, I mean that option two presupposes that the predictions of population growth, population distribution 10 years from now are accurate today. I would ask you to consider how many of the projections you made about 10 years ago for today were valid and held.

[53:29] And how many of you think that the population projections made today for 10 years from now are ones that you would disrupt existing communities to achieve? Thank you, Mr. Fall. Thank you, kindly. Just past your five minutes. But I could tell you were wrapping up ‘cause I know we’ve had a conversation prior to the meeting, so thank you for your presentation. If you wanna hold me back and ask questions, I’d be happy to offer a word. Well, we will move on to the next folks who may want to speak now. Thank you. So I’m looking for other speakers who want to join us for the word boundary review.

[54:09] Good, welcome. Good afternoon. My name is Gil Warren. I live at 624 Williams Street, Unit 16, here in this ward. I see we’re on to Lambeth today. I support what they said. So I’ll get back to Lambeth in a bit. Just in terms of the two options that are on the table, I think option one is the very best option. And I’ve read all the reports and I think the consultants have tried hard to listen to what we said at public meetings. And there’s been a lot of consultation.

[54:44] I would suggest to council that whatever they decide, they should decide to do that today and that we get moving on getting this work done. There’s a timeline here and a deadline. I wanna talk about a couple of small boundary changes. First of all, so I support option one. Option two suggests taking a part of Ward six and putting it into Ward eight. And I don’t think that’s a good idea. So another reason against option two, Councillor Frank has suggested moving those 15 homes into her ward and I support that as well.

[55:27] It’s a minor change. It doesn’t require additional public consultation. And finally for Councillor McAllister in Ward one, he’s suggesting moving round three into Ward 11. If he did that, that population would have to be compensated for in his ward to make, keep the populations even. A suggestion would be that Glen Carren south, south of Commissioner’s Road could go into Headley’s Ward and that might balance it out. But it would keep a relatively simple process for the consultants.

[56:02] My final point is about the, in the current Ward boundary system. And we have at the southern end of the city, Ward’s 12 and Ward nine, they go all the way down to the city boundaries with Elegant County. The consultants in the proposal number one, option number one suggests moving the boundary of Ward 14, south of the 401, farther west to incorporate parts of 12 and nine and using the 401 is the southern boundary, the northern boundary of northwest boundary of Ward 14.

[56:44] I would suggest that since they’re trying to create a rural ward, they could also move the boundary of Ward 12 up to the 402 and use the 402 west of the 401. That would take in a bit of Ward 12, a bit of Ward nine. It’s all rural. It’s not going to be developed in the next decade or so. And it would make the rural ward of Ward 14 even more focused on the farms that are down there. There’s very few people there and there’s some industry, but I think that would make it a little better in terms of the option number one with Ward 14.

[57:23] Those are my comments and I would encourage you once again to try and get this done as fast as possible. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Warren. And we’re looking for other speakers on this matter. I’m going to go to the clerk ‘cause we did have one person who had registered to appear online so we’ll see if that individual has joined us and they have not. So I’ll look for any other speakers in the gallery. This will be our final call for speakers. Once we close the public participation meeting and return to the council debate, there won’t be an opportunity for anyone to speak again.

[58:02] So final call. I don’t see the stampede to the microphone. So I am going to look for a motion to close the public participation meeting moved by Councilor Cuddy and seconded by Councilor Frank. Get the clerk to open the vote on that. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[58:38] Thank you colleagues. So I’m going to take a moment just from the chair and as much for the public’s information as for councils. Although, ‘cause I do hope the councilors all were able to review their emails, but I know there were a flurry of them this weekend and a lot of emails about snow plowing as well. So should they have gotten lost in the shuffle, I want to make sure that colleagues had the opportunity to see those. We’ve had a lot of back and forth with the clerk’s department over the last week to try and make sure that we had a clear understanding of the process moving forward. You heard our consultant as well, caution us about changes in timelines and we even heard from Mr. Warren in the public about the importance of timelines.

[59:19] In reviewing this and in discussion with the clerks. Today we do need to make a decision on an option in principle. So that could be option one or option two. The third option of course is to take no action. Should there be minor amendments? Minor amendments that we wish to refer back to the consultant for an update. Those could be dealt with at the January 17th SPPC and still ratified by council in a way that would allow us to meet our legislative timelines to get this in place by the end of December 31st, 2025.

[59:58] A major adjustment or a referral back without very precise directions on a preferred option that is in front of us today is one of those rare cases where I would rule a referral out of order because it would actually put us outside of the ability to meet our legislative timeline deadlines should there be an appeal made. So in this case, if there is a referral it has to be on a very specific change to a boundary and it comes back on January 17th.

[1:00:36] There is no opportunity to delay it any further out than that for council to ratify and then for the clerks to bring forward the bylaw and for us to then have all of the pieces in place so that the new words, whatever configuration they are in are effective for the 2026 election cycle. So I just wanted to be clear with everybody and to make sure that the public was aware as well. We do in fact need to make a decision today. It can be a decision in principle on one of the options with a couple of minor changes to come back and be dealt with in January.

[1:01:11] But that exhausts our timeline to make a change in time for the election in 2026. So I just wanted to be really clear with folks. So if you are going to propose an amendment and we know that two councilors will, it would be to approve in principle, whichever option the council is heading towards with the following minor amendments to be reported back on January 17th. The expectation would be that what would come back on the 17th is the option, whatever we choose today as is and then a second document that would show the option with the changes.

[1:01:52] And we would then make a final ruling on whether we’re incorporating those changes or whether we’re staying with the options that were presented to us today. So I just wanted to go over that with everybody. I hope it’s clear. I know it’s a little bit complicated and not quite like some of our usual motion processes, but there is provincial legislation involved here and statutory deadlines that have to be met in appeal period, timeframes that have to be allowed for us to move forward. So if you want to see major changes or don’t support either of the options, the referral would essentially be a take no action.

[1:02:29] Take no action is an option. So that would be your path forward. Now, having said all that, I had the mayor ask me to go to him first and I know that Councillor Hopkins has also provided a communication on an option she prefers. Mayor Morgan, I’ll go to you and then I’ll go to Councillor Hopkins. Councillor Hopkins and I have spoken, I just had offered to move option one to put on the floor for discussion in the language is similar to what Councillor Hopkins said, recognizing what you just said. Given there might be minor amendments to that, I’m happy for the language to be slightly adjusted to indicate that it’s our current preferred option that would come back if should amendments be made.

[1:03:10] So I’m willing to put option one on the floor. And Councillor Hopkins, you’re willing to second. And so I’ll come to you to speak to it in just a moment. So I’ll just make sure that the clerks have that in order. So right now we’re putting option one on the floor, should amendments be made and we suspect that there will be, then we would, the amendment would include a change to adjust in principle. So right now your worship, you’re putting option one as is on the floor. I do have Councillor Hopkins. Do you wanna speak to your motion or do you want me to go directly to Councillor Hopkins?

[1:03:43] Okay, so I’ll go to Councillor Hopkins first. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I wanna thank the Mayor for moving this motion as well. The final option number one, which I will gladly second. And I wanna thank the Lambeth community for coming out and speaking to their preference. I think it’s really important that as a committee, we hear from the community, you live there, you work there, you support the local agencies and community groups and you understand your community. I wanna thank the consultant as well.

[1:04:19] Thank you for narrowing it down to two options. I was not looking forward to having this conversation with the four options, so thank you for that. And also thank you for recognizing one of the principles, which is neighborhoods and I would like to speak to the Lambeth neighborhood and why it is important that option one be supported here. If option two is supported, Lambeth would need a lot of tweaking to have it become community again. So that’s why I wouldn’t even consider option two because of what it does to the Lambeth community.

[1:04:55] I wanna start off with maybe about eight years ago, the Lambeth community started a community improvement plan and I was very supportive of that community improvement plan because there’s a lot of development that’s going on around Lambeth and to keep that community unique and it is a unique community and keep it whole. We undertook a community improvement plan and out of that after about a year and a half, we found that what is important is the identity, the cultural, the historical significance of the Lambeth community as it is developed and as it changes.

[1:05:35] That was very, very important and it is something that I learned a lot about that community and as we grow and develop as a city, these neighborhoods need to be supported and kept intact. Who knows what the future will lead but right now we are speaking to the population that we have are facing with our future population as well as the geographical boundaries. So not easy to do but Lambeth is unique. It will make it difficult for this community to collectively address its future.

[1:06:14] We need to support the community and I’m hoping that you will support option one for that reason. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Hopkins, Councilor McAllister. Thank you and through you. I’m also happy to support option one. Looking at it, I do think that that checks a lot of boxes in terms of the criteria we’ve given. I would obviously like to put forward amendments as I previously indicated. There were two for option one.

[1:06:47] I do want to go through each one so I’m going to be mindful of the time. I don’t know, is it appropriate for me to put those amendments on now? So I think where we need to proceed now, Councilor McAllister is move and you’ve indicated two amendments. Move your first amendment. We dispense with that whether it’s pro or con. Move your second amendment. We dispense with that whether it’s pro or con and then we’re back to either the main motion as amended or the main motion and then you can speak to finish your time on the main motion should you wish.

[1:07:23] Then we can load Councilor Frank for her amendments on the main motion or the main motion as amended wherever we land. So now would be the appropriate time to move your first amendment. Okay, would you like me to read it out? Yes, please. Okay, so this would be that final option one be approved in principle with a minor amendment to the boundary between ward one and ward 14 that the area contained between Clark Road, Gore Road, Veterans Memorial Parkway and Hamilton Road be incorporated into ward 14. And then there’s the it being noted that this amendment will return to the SPPC on January 17th that clarifies any impacts to the point of for final approval.

[1:08:07] Okay, and the clerk is just typing. So it’ll give us a moment just to make sure that that’s captured in eScribe. And I will ask if there’s a seconder for that while we’re waiting for the clerk to get that all inputted. Councilor ramen, you’ll second that for discussion. Okay, Councilor McAllister, I’ll ask you to hold for just a moment while we’re waiting on the clerk. Councilor the clerk has it ready in terms of what you’ve read out.

[1:09:13] But did question if you wanted to indicate if there is a particular guiding principle from the consultants in terms of reference that you want referenced in the motion. Communities of interest. Okay, so that’s been saved in eScribe.

[1:09:56] Councilor, I’ll just ask you to check eScribe and confirm that the language meets your intent. Yes. Okay, so that’s capturing your intention. It’s been seconded. We’ve got a technical question from Councilor Frank and Dr. Williams also wants to provide a comment from the consultants perspective.

[1:10:32] Councilor Frank, I’m gonna go to our consultant, Dr. Williams first. That might answer your technical question. And if it doesn’t, we’ll come back to you. Oh, I’m seeing shaking heads that it won’t, but we’ll go to Dr. Williams first and then we’ll come to the counselors on their technical questions. Thank you, this made me more of a pedantic observation. I think in the context of this kind of emotion and any others that follow, I would suggest that the phrasing be between the proposed ward one and the proposed ward 14. In other words, we’re talking about something that hasn’t been implemented as yet.

[1:11:05] So it avoids the confusion about the present wards that have those numbers and the ones that are captured in the option. That is very helpful feedback and the clerk is gonna incorporate that right now. So that’s reflected. Councilor Frank. Can I also speak to my rationale first? Councilor Frank had what she indicated was a technical question. So I’m gonna go to her. I will come back to Councilor, but I’m gonna go to Councilor Frank with her question. Thank you. And I’m not sure if Councilor McCaster intended to do this, but it appears there’s a section to the east of VMP that is part of ward one that would now be floating in the middle of nowhere.

[1:11:42] And I don’t know if the intention was to not include it or if you look at east of VMP, there’s a sliver of ward one that is not included with this package proposal. Yes, so to Councilor Frank’s technical, I’m actually gonna call that a point of order. ‘Cause I think that that is a point of order on the Councilor’s intention. And so is it to Veterans Memorial or the City Limits Councilor? The City Limits then, yeah. Okay, great point of order because that allows some clarification on the clerk’s side as well.

[1:12:22] So again, bear with us for just a moment. We want to make sure we get this right language wise. It’s important to do that. Councilor Hillier, I do see your hand up. So I’ve got you on the speaker’s list. I will come to you in due order. So that has been, the language has been cleaned up in the scribe if I can ask people to refresh.

[1:13:20] Councilor McCallister, in particular, please make sure that that’s capturing your intent. I’m seeing nods from you there. So that’s good. Councilor Frank, that addresses your point of order. Seeing thumbs up there. Okay, so Councilor McCallister, I will come back to you now to speak to the rationale of your amendment. And then I have Councilor Hillier on the speaker’s list next. Councilor McCallister. Okay, thank you and through you. So recognizing, one of the things I want to call out first was when you look at what was proposed, I’ve actually kept the lion’s share of the area, which is already in my ward, but it’s the most populous.

[1:13:54] So this was the area that if we had gone with option two, I had highlighted if people are trying to understand what I’m talking about. This is the area I typically call the classic drive area, which is the largest road. And it is the subdivision that is around East Park. So that is where the lion’s share of the population is for that area. And that would be retained in ward one. The area that I’m specifically referring to is East of Clark Road and goes north to the tracks out to the county boundary and then down veterans back to Hamilton. So recognizing in the consultant’s report that they did mention that this part of this area views itself as Hamilton Road, that is predominantly the area around East Park and that subdivision.

[1:14:40] Further East, which is the area I’m referring to, East of Clark, what I hear consistently from that area, and perhaps Councilor Hill, you can speak to this as well, but it is predominantly industrial. And so I have heard a number of times that they would like to be part of the Southern Ward, which is Ward 14, to have a more unified voice, better representation to reflect the industrial interests because this is not very populous this area. There is the one subdivision, which is probably the area that the consultants would need to do the numbers on, but this is predominantly industrial and floodplain and green space that we’re talking about.

[1:15:22] So in terms of, I guess it’s not just community and interest, but it is also in terms of, I guess, industrial. I don’t know how you want to put that. A community of interest is the one that made the most sense to me. But what I predominantly hear is that this area has more in common with Ward 14 and that that’s where they naturally align with. It’s not very populous and it’s predominantly industrial. So I’m happy to go back and forth on this a little bit. I know Councilor Hillier wants to speak to it, but I wanted to provide that rationale in terms of what I’ve heard from that community.

[1:15:58] Thank you, Councilor McAllister. I’m gonna come to you next, Councilor Hillier, but I’m just gonna take a moment to flag for Councilor McAllister’s consideration by specifying Hamilton Road as the Southern boundary, rather than the Thames River, you are actually going to put part of that population in Ward 14 regardless on the south side of Hamilton Road, retain part of it in Ward 1.

[1:16:32] So I will go to Councilor Hillier next. I will come back to you to see if you want to change that to the Thames River rather than Hamilton Road, but mindful of what you’ve been saying in your rationale, I think that there may be something that you want to change there yet. So I’m gonna go to Councilor Hillier next, let him speak, and I’ll come back to you, Councilor McAllister, to see if you want to clarify that boundary line. Councilor Hillier. Thank you, and through the chair, first question, is there a natural, that’d be in the public, so it’d be the northeastern border that there is eventual and a federal line for the elections?

[1:17:20] I’m sorry, Councilor, can you repeat that? And I’m not sure— For the border for the provincial and the federal elections, where is those borders? On those, do they reflect the word boundary? I don’t have it on the map, that’s why I’m asking. Well, Councilor, I can ask our consultant that. The federal and the provincial boundaries are no longer contiguous between the federal war, or the federal writings and the provincial writings either. So that could further complicate things. I will go to Dr. Williams to see if he can provide us information on that.

[1:17:55] The short answer is I don’t have that in front of me. Either of that process has been going on and is not directly part of the work that we’ve been doing. So I can’t say for sure whether those boundaries would match this exercise at all. And so I’m sorry, I can’t help you, Councilor. That’s okay, okay, moving on. I understand where Councilor McKellis was coming from this, I do, but I’m wondering because it’s a better reflect communities of interest. Across the river, we have houses. Now we do have the industrial park, but that’s quite a ways farther down the road.

[1:18:31] And a lot of us have industrial in our wards. And personally, I prefer to have the rivers in natural border, and I’m hoping my colleagues feel the same way, ‘cause we’re not moving a bunch of borders here. This is just industrial and commercial representation. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Hayleyor. I will come to you next, Councilor Trussow. However, Councilor Hayleyor, I’ll advise in response to your question with respect to the provincial boundaries, I can advise you that there is no riding boundary that would be impacted there for the provincial riding of London Fanshawe.

[1:19:13] Regardless of this change, all of the voters would be in the same provincial riding. We’re quickly checking the federal map for you. I will let you know that as soon as I can, but I’m gonna go to Councilor Trussow next. Councilor Trussow. Thank you very much through the chair. I’m not sure if this is a point of order or just a numerical inquiry, but can somebody, either the proponent or the consultant, tell me how many households would be involved in this move? I’m not sure if Dr. Williams can offer that today, or whether it would have to be the 17th, but I’ll go to Dr. Williams first.

[1:19:52] I certainly don’t have that number at hand. We have some of the Watson team, I believe online, and there might be some information there that we could get. How quickly that could be done, I’m not sure, but I don’t have it right here in front of me. And Councilor McAllister, did you wanna respond to Councilor Trussow’s question? Yeah, so, I mean, I had to use Google Maps, but the map that I did send around to Council, there is one small subdivision, just East of Clark, which would be the most impacted.

[1:20:24] The rest of that area, there are a few houses here and there, but it’s predominantly industrial. It’s very mixed use through that area, you do see commercial industrial in some small residential, but the majority of that geographical area is commercial or industrial. It’s really only that subdivision that is just East of Clark Road, and I can list the streets if you want. That is, do you want the streets listed, or do you know the subdivision I’m referring to? Councilor Trussow.

[1:21:07] Thank you. Through the chair, I’m more interested in the number of households that are involved in the move. Before I can decide whether or not I wanna make a point of order as to whether or not this is a minor amendment. We have Mr. Valente from Watson and Associates with us online, and he’s got his hand up. Mr. Valente, can you indicate to us an approximate number of households?

[1:21:40] Yeah, based on the information that we had been provided to the city, it’s about 850 persons in that area of change. Not households, but people. Okay, thank you for that. Councilor Trussow. I’m hesitant to want to have a matter determined on a procedural motion, but I will note that that’s a substantial number. I believe that that is not a minor amendment, and if it was a minor amendment, it would have been good to have it in earlier, so we could have really checked how many households are involved, so ultimately I’ll be voting against this amendment, but I’m looking to the chair and the clerk for some guidance, and if this amendment passes, I’m hoping that the consultants will be able to do this calculation really quickly, as you just did, to be able to allow us to proceed at the next council meeting.

[1:22:39] I’m not, even if we make this amendment, I’m not sure we need to be getting into January, but as things stand right now, I have a question about whether this is a minor amendment. Councilor Trussow, I think I kind of heard a few questions in there, so I’m gonna, if you don’t mind, take a little liberty and go to Dr. Williams and ask, first of all, would Watson and Associates be able to provide numerical data back to us prior to our council meeting, which is the 17th of this month, or would it require the time over the break to come back to us in January?

[1:23:22] And the second part of that, I think what I heard is whether or not in your professional opinion, you would deem this minor or a major amendment. Let me take it in the reverse order, if I can. We’ve been debating this question in the last week or so with staff and our own team about when does an amendment become more than a minor change. I think the issue there, of course, becomes what the ripple effect is, which I think is part of what the councilor’s question, if you take 800 out of one word and put it in another, what will it do to that one in the light of the population perspective we’re trying to reach, and I don’t have that number.

[1:23:59] Mr. Valenti, who was on the call gave you a number. My sense, so in answer to that first question is, I’m pretty sure that we could come back with something fairly quickly that would indicate what the implication of that change would be in a population sense for this exercise. And with respect to quickly, if we were to approve any motions for future consideration, would fairly quickly constitute having that data for us next week, or would you perceive a perhaps a longer runway than that?

[1:24:40] Well, I think I will, again, defer to Josh Valenti on this one, because I wouldn’t be doing the work. So he could tell us how much of that could be done within the time you’re talking about. Fair enough. Mr. Valenti, can you give us just a quick how much runway you would need to get back to us with data in terms of the ripple effect? Yeah, we can get that to the end of the week now that we have what’s requested. Okay, thank you for that. I’ve got some counselors on the speakers list.

[1:25:14] I’m just gonna ask folks to hold on. I need to confer with clerk for a moment. So the clerk’s just advising that if it could come by the end of the week, it would be on the added agenda for council next week. I have a point of order. Okay, point of order, Councilor McAllister. So one thing that has not been mentioned, which I hope the consultant would mention is that I am the only ward that is out of the range.

[1:25:51] I am at the highest and I’m not back in range in any of those. So even to the Councilor Trossow’s point. So Councilor, I’m gonna cut you off there. I don’t think that’s actually a point of order. I think that’s something that you can continue in your rationale at the end ‘cause you still have two minutes and 30 seconds of your five minutes on your amendment left. So I don’t think that that’s actually a point of order. I think that’s something you can raise and debate. I have, sorry, Councilor Hopkins, then Councilor Pribble, and then Councilor Stevenson. And then we’ll see if there’s an opportunity, obviously, to come back to Councilor McAllister or if there are other speakers.

[1:26:29] So Councilor Hopkins, I have you next. Yeah, thank you. The consultant answered the first part of my question about what constitutes a minor amendment that I’m pleased that we’re able to get this information back to us before Council. As we move forward to Council, would we still have to vote on this being an amendment and then vote on it again? I’m not exactly sure of procedure going forward. So process-wise, we would first have to prove this amendment today.

[1:27:05] Then at Council, the data would be available to us and should we then wish to vote on it a different way? We could vote on it and defeat it or we could vote on it and ratify it. There is also still the option, not ideal, but to send it to the January 17th SPPC for consideration. But I am sensing some appetite that folks would prefer to deal with it as expediently as possible. So we would have to approve this amendment today in order to provide our staff direction to get the consultants to provide that information.

[1:27:41] That’s what I was looking for, thank you. Okay, great. Anything else, Councilor Hopkins? Not currently, okay, Councilor Pribble, you’re next. Thank you, the proposed change by Councilor McCullister, when I look at 21, 25, 30, 35, the Ward 1 actually has five to 12,000 population higher than Ward 14. So I would have no issue with the 850 at all if anything, it would bring it closer, thank you. Thank you, Councilor Stevenson.

[1:28:15] Thank you, I just had a quick question for the consultant as we consider these minor amendments. My understanding was there would be an additional cost for this, just wanted to confirm that, and if there was a budget per change that we could consider just even very approximately. Dr. Williams. At this point, I believe these things could be managed within the budget, and I hope I don’t get in trouble for saying that, but I think if we’re talking about trying to wrap this up under the format we’re talking about within the week and even perhaps in the January issue that we could certainly cover that within the budget allocation.

[1:28:54] If we’re start talking about much more work than I’d have to defer to Jack Emendolio at Watson as to what the financial implications of that might be. Councilor Stevenson, thumbs up from you. Okay, so I have no other speakers on this at the moment. So I can come back to you, Councilor McCullister, if you want to wrap up on this. And I should actually provide a point of clarification as well in follow up to Councilor Stevenson. The communication that I provided on the weekend with respect to the dialogue with the clerks was that further rounds of consultation would require additional budgetary resources.

[1:29:36] Any major mathematical reworking would require that, but in conversation with the clerks on the weekend, minor things could probably, again, recognizing depending on how much we asked them, could probably be accommodated, but anything major would probably be outside the scope of the approved budget. Councilor McCullister. Thank you and through you. Appreciate the discussion on this. And yeah, Councilor Perlow is bringing up the points, sorry, I shouldn’t have called a point of order on that, but I should have brought that up earlier. This is also a population issue, especially in the first few years, it really does go up substantially.

[1:30:15] I’m trying my best to redistribute, I know it’s not my job, but I also think it’s fair to have more appropriate representation on a balanced population size, that’s what this whole exercise is about. So I think that that’s also something we really have to take into consideration. As we heard, it doesn’t sound like it’s about 850, maybe 1,000, I would say max, I can’t imagine to be more than that, but it’s not a huge number we’re talking about. I think geographically, neighborhood of interest, this area better aligns with what we’re already seeing in the proposed ward for 14.

[1:30:50] So I would kindly ask my colleagues support this. I think it will lead to better representation for that area. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor McAllister for that. And in the interim, I can also follow up to Councilor Hillier’s earlier question. At the federal level, this would still all be contained within one federal writing in both variations. So ward one and 14 would still fall within the federal writing of London Fanshawe. Looking for any other speakers, before I ask the clerk to open the vote on this one.

[1:31:29] Councilor Ferreira. Thank you, Chair. So I do see what the Councilor is proposing. I was under the impression that we were gonna get kind of, you know, a good affirmative, kind of what is a minimal change, but I do see that we weren’t able to get what qualifies as a minimal change. From what I got here on my notes, you know, there’s concern with the ripple effects is what I’m looking at too. So I just wanted to know, is that that was the final answer. We’re not gonna be able to get that. What is considered a minimal adjustment at this time and we’ll be getting that within a week?

[1:32:12] I’m sorry, Councilor. I was just consulting with the clerk on timeline. So can I get you to repeat that specific question? I’m just looking for some clarification on what constitutes a minimal change and when will we get that information? And I guess to add to that, would we have to vote on this today? Because I wouldn’t feel too comfortable making a decision without knowing what counts as a minimal amendment. Okay, so I’m going to go to Dr. Williams on the minor definition again. But first I’m gonna provide you, ‘cause this was what I was asking the clerk while you were speaking there in terms of the timelines.

[1:32:48] So whatever amendments we potentially passed today are not binding because they’re not ratified by Council yet. So we would still have the chance to withdraw support or add support to those next week. Whatever amendments we potentially approve today, the path forward for the clerks would be to prepare two versions of the by-law, one based on option one without any changes, one based on option one with changes that are approved by the committee today.

[1:33:24] That way both are available to us at Council. In the interim, Watson and Associates would do their math, provide numbers to us on the added agenda after the deadline on 9 a.m. Monday morning. So we would have that information at Council to better inform the decision. At this point, we still have it being noted that a report could come to the January 17th SPPC. I would encourage colleagues to leave that in right now as a backup so that should things not meet the timelines for the Council.

[1:34:02] The information we can then decide at Council, whether we want the information for the 17th or whether we simply want to make a final decision at Council. It actually leaves one alternate path open to us at Council. Should we not feel comfortable with where we are at the time? Dr. Williams, can you provide some additional insight to us in terms of what would constitute a minor versus a major amendment? Without doing this on the fly here, but part of the call I think would be what I said earlier. What’s the ripple effect? Changes that are part of final option one where essentially the wards are largely kept intact and in fact, many wards are not changed at all, is only a boundary between, let’s say, two proposed wards.

[1:34:48] That would certainly come under that, heading of a minor change. Again, with the implication of what is accomplished in terms of community of interest and the ripple effect on population. Once we start looking at if we change this and then we’ve got to change that one and change the other one or whatever, that obviously is a major change and I think that would not be something we would want to consider in this conversation. It’s really about, I keep coming back to that word, but minor changes in a single boundary or two. Again, I’m making this up as I go over based on the work we’ve done.

[1:35:26] It’s not a precise exercise, but I think if the large configuration of the ward, the communities that are there are remain unchanged, then it would certainly fall under that heading. It’s when we take, basically creating a whole new ward, I think, would be what we’re trying to avoid here under this kind of a heading. Sorry if that’s as close as I can get to it at this point. Well, I think that that was helpful, Dr. Williams. Councillor Ferreira, does that assist you with your question?

[1:36:01] Not really. Like gut feeling, would you consider, ‘cause it’s in the 850, so I understand there’s some cloudiness there, and we need to kind of really kind of get down into the numbers to see if that would be considered minor or not. I get that. I guess with the other memo we see, and I think it was less than 20 households, would you comfortably say that’s a minor change? Dr. Williams? No, no wrong way. I would say definitely it is. In fact, I could suggest that the reason why it was drawn that way was the choice to use one boundary rather than another, to use a rail line rather than an arterial and vice versa.

[1:36:37] That’s a pretty simple change, and doesn’t affect anything largely. And it’s based on the application of one of the other guiding principles. And again, our discussion on the team at Watson about this was, the line was picked because there was an obvious boundary, but there was a second obvious boundary, so they picked one rather than the other. To switch it back and forth is not a significant alteration in the profile of either of the wards. Councillor Ferreira, oh, Dr. Williams, can you turn off your microphone?

[1:37:13] I appreciate that clarification. I guess I would wait, like I guess at this time, I wouldn’t be in support. I wouldn’t not be in support. I would wanna wait for this level anyways to have that information back before I make that decision. So if we’re, I know it’s not preferred to be referred to the next meeting, but I guess if this is the will of the council, I would be inclined to make that decision when I have that extra information on this item. Councillor Frank. Thank you. My only follow-up is maybe again, a bit of a wordsmithing, but we still have Hamilton Road listed up there, and there’s eight homes on the south side of Hamilton Road, but on the north side of the river.

[1:37:54] I’m just wondering if we wanna clean that up, or if this is actually the language that we’re gonna be voting on? So that was actually where I was gonna go next, ‘cause I noticed the same thing in seeing what the clerk has in his scribe. So Councillor McAllister, coming back to you just for clarification, is it Hamilton Road, or is it the river that you want as the southern boundary? Okay, so my understanding from recollection in terms of that area, the reason why I have to use Hamilton Road is if you use the river, does that one other side of Hamilton Road, then, on the south side of the river become part of Ward 1?

[1:38:31] This is why I thought using Hamilton Road to the river made sense, ‘cause that’s where the boundary already exists right now. So the short answer to that is no, the river is not the boundary right now, so to Councillor Frank’s point, you have a small number of households that would still be incorporated into Ward 14 around the, you have a condominium complex at Brayside Ave, between Brayside and River Run Terrace, that would be incorporated into Ward 14.

[1:39:13] And there are a small number of homes because right now the line starts at Highbury, and so you have Meadowley Road North and those few condo complexes or townhouse complexes that would be incorporated into Ward 14 if you leave Hamilton Road, if you use the Thames River as the boundary, everything south of the river is Ward 14, everything north of the river following along is would become part of Ward 1 there.

[1:39:56] Okay, so I don’t think we’re on the same page here. The reason why I wasn’t using the river is because if I understand what you’re saying on the western side in terms of Clark Road, I’m talking about the eastern side of Clark because I don’t want to use the boundary for the river because then everything north, which is the industrial area that I’m referencing is the part I’m trying to change. So that’s further complicating issues then, so. I don’t know how it’s, sorry, I’ve sent the map, so I don’t know why there is confusion here.

[1:40:40] I’m just going to check your map that was sent to the clerks and circulated. So it would be Clark down to the river is what we were referencing.

[1:44:18] Okay, thanks to the wisdom of our clerks and their geotechnical mapping skills here. We, just for clarification, the option that would incorporate what those eight homes would read that the final option one, be approved in principle with a minor amendment to the boundary between the proposed Ward 1 and the proposed Ward 14 so that the area contained between Clark Road or Road, the eastern city limit, and Hamilton Road to the Thames River being incorporated into the proposed Ward 14 to better reflect communities of interest.

[1:45:06] And the clerk is interpreting this as drawing the map in that direction so that it takes them back to the Thames River. I’m seeing nods from Councillor McAllister, Councillor Romoneer. Okay, as the seconder with that, okay. Any further discussion? Councillor Layman. Thank you and the challenge I have quite frankly is I’m not familiar with this area so I have to lean on three points of view. One is the Councillors whose areas are impacted and then on the consultants report.

[1:45:46] So I hear one Councillor proposing this. I hear another Councillor whose area would be affected not supporting this amendment. So I guess I would like to go to the consultant through you chair and just say why did you, why was your reasoning behind this original option and not what the Councillor is proposing for amendment? Well, let’s ask Dr. Williams. I’m not sure I can answer that specifically.

[1:46:27] The process of drawing these maps took place over several weeks, a number of iterations to be able to say that precise line came out of x or y decision is not something I can offer. Again, I can defer back to Josh Valenti at Watson who would have had a better hands-on role in that. But the simple answer is that drawing these particular configurations is a combination of several factors. What are the landmarks we can use, the river or the road? What are the communities of interest? What’s the population significance?

[1:47:00] Things of that sort that go into the blend. So in that sense, it’s not a case of setting up and saying let’s draw that line there because of A, B and C. It’s really the other way around. Putting all those together, that creates a pattern, a picture of 14 words in which this is one piece of the puzzle. I’m again, I’m not sure, Mr. Chair, whether Josh would be able to help with a little more on that. But it’s this process that went through all of these maps and the various alternatives that are there.

[1:47:33] So it’s very difficult to give you a specific reason why that line was drawn at that point in that option. So I’m popping out again. And we will see if Mr. Valenti can provide a little more clarity on that. And just before I go to you, Mr. Valenti, I will point out to colleagues that in the final option one slide on page 73 of your report with the City of London preliminary option, it is indicated in there and the consultants have outlined that they conveyed that area toward one in their final option.

[1:48:15] And what Councilor McAllister’s proposal is doing is conveying only part of that toward one and leaving part of it in ward 14. If that provides some assistance with thanks to the clerk for passing me the map so that I could bring that to folks attention. And Mr. Valenti, if you can provide us some additional information on the rationale, that would be appreciated. Yeah, that’s great. And you actually beat me to part of that as well. So part of what we did here through the public feedback is that area there does correlate with ward one rather than ward 14 to the Councilor’s discretion, maybe not all of it or all of it is.

[1:48:53] We didn’t necessarily hear that detail, but we do know is that I believe through the last round of ward boundary adjustments that change was made as well to use that river as that defining line. So we in the final option one, we did decide to go back to revert back to the river as that distinguishable line rather than Clark Road or another alternative. Thank you, Mr. Valenti. Councilor Layman, your thumbs up, okay? Looking for other speakers, Mayor Morgan.

[1:49:28] And I hate to ask for more clarity. In the Councilor’s email, he uses the train track, which captures both kind of triangles of one triangle of the industrial area. But now my understanding is from your map, you wanna actually shift it and use Clark Road as the northern boundary. So I don’t understand the text here with what the Councilor sent around in the final option one with where he drew a circle around a map, right? Which had a, like it captured a slightly different amount of the industrial land, including a triangle north of Clark Road bounded by the tracks Clark Road and Gore Road.

[1:50:13] But I’m not, I’m just unsure on if he’s using Gore Road now and he’s trying to include industrial. Are we stranding this triangle north that is south of the tracks? North of Gore Road, south of the tracks west of Clark Road. So the short answer based on the language of the clerk drafted up and the map that the clerk was looking at when drafting that is no, that would still, that little triangle would still be conveyed to ward one from the preliminary option one to the final, in the final option one where it was not before.

[1:50:50] Nothing is stranded based on how the clerk has interpreted the map to be drawn with the language we’ve provided. A shred is not the right word that what I heard the Councilor’s intent was the industrial community of interest. He’s trying to put together. It looks like there’s a large, and I’m not familiar with the area, but there’s a large, there’s auto records, there’s Raj motors, there’s Guilford distributors, like there seems like there’s a large industrial piece that matches the industrial to the south. But given the text of the language is now going to be in ward one as a small little sliver.

[1:51:27] So there’s another industrial piece that if you use the tracks all the way over, rather than switch to Gore Road at the tracks that you lose, Kaiser aluminum, aim recycling, some other things. So maybe the trip. Anyways, this is the problem with not having the map. You see where I’m going. I’m trying to align his goal of a community of interest. Doesn’t seem to align with where this map is starting to be drawn. And my concern is we do all this work. We come back to a meeting and all of a sudden later we’re making more adjustments to say, well, now we’ve got to add this triangle in.

[1:52:02] We’ve got to take this piece of the triangle out because that actually captures the industrial land a lot easier. So I’ll leave that with you. But right now, I’m just not lining up what the council is saying about aligning communities of interest with where the actual text of the language actually identifies it looks to me like you’re leaving parts behind. Yeah. And the clerk is identifying that right now. So that’s— So I think what I indicated to the clerk was that the reason why I said Gore is the train track that intersects Gore, because that triangle, as the mayor indicated, that’s the section I am talking about.

[1:52:49] So if that helps clarify it. It does— the clerk has, again, made an adjustment to the language that would capture exactly that correction, which now would define the lines as between Clark Road, Canadian National Railway, the eastern city limit to Hamilton Road, to the Thames River, be incorporated into Ward 14 to better reflect communities of interest.

[1:54:41] We have what we think is the final language on this. Have verified the map delineation, looking for any further speakers on this. Councillor Layman. Just a clarification on reading this. It says, if being noted, this amendment will return to SPPC on January 17. Are we planning to come back to that meeting? Are we looking to pass as a council after this meeting? So as I indicated with Councillor Ferreira’s question, I’m suggesting that it being noted be left in any amendments for today to provide us the option at Council to decide whether or not we are prepared to make a decision or to refer it to the 17th.

[1:55:31] It gives us two options when we get to Council. So I’m suggesting we leave that in there for now. The direction has been very clearly heard that the clerks will contact Watson and Associates as soon as we finish today. They will provide us with the best information they can on the added agenda for the 9 a.m. Monday morning deadline. We will have that at Council. There will be two bylaws available to us. One with no changes, one with all the changes. That point we can make a decision to ratify either one or we can make a decision to send the one with changes to the 17th for a little bit of additional consideration before we make a final decision.

[1:56:19] I have no one else since, hey, I have Councillor Ferreira and Councillor Mayor Morgan on the speakers list. I’ll go to Council Ferreira first and then to Mayor Morgan. Thank you, Chair. Just a quick question on that. If we were to bring back two bylaws, one with all the changes, but let’s say I only support one or two just from the information we get, that would push us to the next SPPC meeting, correct? That is correct. If you’re only, we can’t ask the clerks, there will not be time to create five or six different bylaws here.

[1:56:53] So we will have one with all the changes and one with none of the changes. If the majority of council does not support either one of those, then we would have to push it to the 17th of January. Yep, thank you. Mayor Morgan. Yeah, so I’ll make a comment. I have the same problem that Councillor Ferre has and that’s if I were to support Councillor Frank’s amendment after getting the information on one of Councillor McAllister’s amendments, basically in a situation where I’m gonna ask to refer the whole thing to the 17th because I either have to take all of them or not.

[1:57:32] That’s what you’re saying. That’s fine. I don’t want to be in a situation though where actually we will be in that situation. So that’s fine. Okay, I get it. Okay, we’re all clear looking for any final speakers. Oh, Councillor Van Merebergen. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to clarify, with regard to the motion that you’re about to put on the floor, is it possible to vote in two parts?

[1:58:10] In other words, can we vote yes to final option one being approved in principle? And then if we choose to vote no to the rest, in other words, can we call that as an A and B? The short answer to that is no. And procedurally, I’ll explain why. This is only an amendment to the main motion. The main motion is to approve option one. So any amendments have to contain the language to approve in principle. But we are not actually, if you vote no to this, you are not voting no to option one.

[1:58:44] There will be another vote on option one later. Okay, thank you for that. Helpful, okay. Any other speakers before I call the question? Seeing none, then I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Housing the vote, motion fails six to nine.

[1:59:28] Okay, so we are back to the main motion. So I’m gonna go back to Councilor McAllister now, who had a second amendment. No, I’ll withdraw and I’ll be late. Wait for later. Look, so we have the main motion on the floor at the moment, and I’m looking for speakers on the main motion, or I’ll go to Councilor Frank for your amendment. Yes, I’d love to do my amendment.

[2:00:01] So I circulated it, it’s on the added agenda. Maybe I’ll put it on the floor before I speak to it. And I have a seconder, it looks like. Yeah, so we will look for a seconded by, I’m gonna second it, take Councilor Ferrara as the seconder, as it’s his ward that you’re hoping to convey something from two Ward 11, so for more 13 to Ward 11, we have a mover and a seconder. Thank you, and I appreciate all the support over here. So as outlined, there’s about 15 homes that were included in a Ward 13 in both scenarios, and in my opinion, they’re more of a natural fit Ward 11, both geographically, as well as the natural barriers.

[2:00:43] The traffic, the train tracks are very natural burn. People usually don’t travel across them because you’re not allowed to. And so this is just a more natural fit, in my opinion, and it’s in my opinion, very minor, ‘cause it’s only 15 homes. So happy to answer any questions, but that’s really just the rationale. And we’ll look for speakers to that. Councilor Trusso. Thank you for the chair, I’m gonna support the amendment as much as I did not want to support any amendments today, but I wanna thank the Councilor for number one, getting this in, number two, being exceptionally clear, number three, pinpointing the number of households that were involved, and I wanna add that I consider this to be so de minimis, such a de minimis change between towards, that it’s not gonna have any appreciable effect on any ripple or any balance between the two wards.

[2:01:40] So I would be very comfortable in passing this very minor amendment today, and then just proceeding at the Council meeting next week on this without any need to even refer to the 17th of January, ‘cause I don’t see any scenario why this would spill over to that. And again, thank you for your clarity. Thank you, Councilor Trusso, looking for other speakers, Councilor Ferreira. Thanks, Chair, I won’t say too much more.

[2:02:12] I agree with Councilor Trusso’s comments. I do like the clarity that you put in that. I learned a new word, de minimis today. And I did, just to confirm, asking Dr. Williams, this is a minimal change. You did say that on the last item, so I’m in support of this as well. I guess I’ll go to you just to confirm. To Williams. I think we have clarified that this would be a minimal change, yes, and could easily be incorporated without necessarily having to be referred on, if this is the only outcome of the discussion on option one.

[2:02:58] Thank you, Dr. Williams, looking for any other speakers. Seeing none, then I will ask the clerk to open the vote on this. Closing the vote, the motion carries 14 to zero, noting Councillor McAlister absent.

[2:03:50] Councillor Frank. Thank you, and I did circulate an additional motion. I’m just wondering, given that it’s not specifically about the composition, if we wanna wait till later, if that’s all sorted, or if I can put it on the floor now, it’s about the naming conventions concept. Okay, so the way it’s prepared in E-Scribe, it would be better if we finalized any potential boundary changes first.

[2:04:24] And then it would be a motion to amend that following the adoption of the ward boundaries, et cetera. So it would be best if we did any boundary amendments first, and then proceeded with that. Okay, I’m gonna look for other speakers on final option one, which is on the floor, as amended, with the minor change that we had just passed. So I’ll go to Councillor Trussau, and then to Councillor Stevenson.

[2:05:01] Thank you through the chair, I’m gonna be very brief. I wanna clarify, as the ward Councillor, and somebody who’s very familiar with the boundary between ward six and ward eight, that I believe that there is a much stronger community of interest in map one than there is in map two. That change, while there’s no rule against crossing provincial or federal boundaries, it would do that, it would cross Wonderland, which is a major thoroughfare.

[2:05:35] And most significantly, and I do wanna put this in the record, it would sever the near campus neighborhood. The border between the near campus neighborhood and areas to the west is Platz Lane. Planning staff can correct me if I’m wrong, but there is a, not large, but there is quite a bit of land in that southwestern triangle, as I’ll call it, which is in the near campus neighborhood.

[2:06:08] And I believe that that should be kept together. So certainly that’s not as glaring or compelling as a land that situation. But I just did wanna put that on the record to explain my vote. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Trussell, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I’ll be supporting this. I was grateful to see a bit more of my ward kept in the first version. I pretty much started all over again with Ward four, so it was good to see this.

[2:06:40] Just some feedback for the process, though. I think too often it comes, big, big issues, come to council without time for a referral. And I think this was probably known well in advance to not allow us to have the opportunity for a referral. I think is a, I just think as feedback, there should always be that opportunity for a referral. The other thing is with it, there being such a big change for Ward four, there was no opportunity for community feedback or for me, even just for the consultant to reach out to the Councillor and just for consideration.

[2:07:24] Consider that this has broken up Carlin Heights. So if this had gone down to the tracks instead of to Oxford, it would have maintained the integrity of that neighborhood and that community interest. It might have also helped with the population between Ward one and Ward four. I’m obviously not going to be bringing up anything like that now, knowing that there wasn’t the time, but again, had there been the time, had this process started sooner, there would have been an opportunity to make things better and ensure that the concerns of what Lambeth was speaking to could have been avoided with Carlin Heights.

[2:08:03] So I will be supporting this, although I do hope that in the future, we do leave more time for council to deliberate these things and to have a community consultation for all wards. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson, looking for other speakers, Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Overall, I just want to say that I appreciate the engagement that was done. I know they were out in person versus online across the city of London.

[2:08:36] Also as a ward council are doing engagement, as we do with our communities in the fashion that we choose to, I did take that opportunity. It’s nice that for the most part, my rural residents seem to enjoy me. And it was just like, who’s going to be our councilor? What’s going to happen next? And the question is, and what’s going to happen next is 2026. And we don’t know who’s going to be in these chairs and who’s going to seek what areas to run in. My question through you to either the representatives in the room or online, whoever’s most appropriate, just it was raised in the gallery of just looking for the consideration that was given for the section of ward 12 that is between the 402 and the 401.

[2:09:14] I’m always happy to keep it, just if they did receive any specific feedback of that triangle of residents that were more rural and their decision of recommendations of where to keep it. Dr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We did have a lot of debate about the nature of Southern London and how to handle that in a future ward system. Various scenarios were tried out. Again, as I explained earlier in a question, you’ve only seen four or five maps.

[2:09:49] There’s probably about 50 of them that have been drawn up in different times, in different ways to try to come back to that question. There was some support for having a particular rural voice, but again, the population doesn’t justify a single ward. So our trade-offs are around the principals. The area should have a voice, but how much can we make it a single rural ward again? And we’ve seen this in some of the messages, I think around this meeting about the growth along the Northern fringes and how much would that change the nature of that ward?

[2:10:29] As I said, I think our basic conclusion was the numbers don’t justify a single rural ward community of interest does, but it creates, again, the phrase I used before the ripple effect. If you create a single rural ward and put no urban community in it at all, then all the others end up being perhaps larger. And we only have a 5% range of variation in here. So there was not a lot of wiggle room, if you will, to be able to say there’s a single rural ward and we deal with the rest of the city in 13 wards and still meet those principals.

[2:11:08] So I recognize that the ideas of using 402 or this or that are considered. And again, it’s weighing in the mall up and deciding what’s best for the whole city without necessarily harming anyone part of it. And I feel unfortunate that residents of Lambeth felt that that was the way their community was treated. It was certainly not a deliberate attempt to do that. And we certainly have made an effort to visit those areas and to talk to them.

[2:11:44] In fact, there was a public consultation session in Lambeth if I’m not mistaken. So that information was available and was folded into that bigger challenge that we tried to deal. Sorry, that’s a long answer to a short question. That’s so quick. Thank you. As long as we don’t both have long questions and long answers, we’re good. Thank you for that answer. I know when your preliminary preliminary, when your original suggestions came back, I questioned you just one rule of councilors. I know Councillor Hopkins, myself and Councillor Hilliard, we hear the rule of residence and they are very different concerns.

[2:12:23] And I was worried about losing that voice to help residents and advocacy on this as you always need a mover and a seconder to help advocate for residents. So I think this was a good mix as for that area. Wanna thank the Lambeth residents for taking the time and coming out. Councillor Hopkins and I share a border. I do enjoy Warren Cliff as I go down and Main Street as I get my donuts to enjoy your community. So thank you for that. And you definitely are a community and keeping you together is important. So happy to support final option one. I would say this conversation is never easy as we’re learning about each other’s ends of town and we don’t necessarily have the full connection.

[2:13:07] So I appreciate advocacy as they’ve come in throughout the meetings in person online and as Councillors speak for their communities here. So just thank you. I would just say my other feedback was just interested in the other information Councillor McAllister had of looking for the neighboring Councillors as this seems to be the time to have those conversations. I will leave it to you, Mr. Chair. If there’s a will to have conversations of concerns without the Council representative here, I’ve just, I don’t see how we’d have our conversations at their future points, this seems to be it.

[2:13:44] So, and after how much money and time was invested in this process at perhaps relieving something on the set and on the table. Thank you for that, Councillor. And at this point, actually it was my intention to turn over the chair to Councillor Raman and I’m going to move to the second amendment so that we can discuss that. So Councillor Raman, can I ask you to take the chair please? Thank you, go ahead. So in Councillor McAllister’s absence colleagues, I’m gonna put on the floor if there’s a seconder for it.

[2:14:18] The second amendment that he was going to propose, which is that final option one be approved in principle with a minor amendment to the boundary between the proposed ward one and the proposed ward 11 so that the area contained between Wellington Road South and the train tracks adjacent to Adelaide Street, brackets the Roan Tree area be incorporated into ward 11 it being noted to better reflect communities of interest and better balanced population and then the being noted for the January 17th.

[2:14:55] And look to see if there’s a seconder for that. I’ll look to see if there’s a seconder for that. Councillor Frank, go ahead, has seconded. So with that, we’ll look for debate. I’ll go to Councillor Frank. Point of order on your point of order, go ahead. I think so there is a townhouse complex just east of Westminster Ave that would become, in my opinion, a bit of an orphan. So I’m wondering if we could use the train tracks all the way over based on the image that was circulated because just south of that is the hospital and that’s its own thing, but I just think that that little triangle of townhouses will get orphaned if we don’t include it in this motion for discussion.

[2:15:36] Okay, so that was a technical question on whether we should amend that amendment in order to include that language. Okay, I’ll have you take a look at that language and see if the movers is comfortable with it. I’m seeing nods, but we’ll give everybody a chance to read it over before we move forward. So the area’s been amended to read the proposed ward 11 so that the area contained between Wellington Road South and the Canadian National Railway adjacent to Adelaide Street South, Roundtree area, south to Commissioners Road East, be incorporated into proposed ward 11 to better reflect communities of interest and balancing population.

[2:17:50] Thank you, thank you for reading that out. I’ll just check with the mover and seconder, getting thumbs up. Okay, with that, I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis for comment. Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. So I will say that I think that this amendment does make some sense when I looked at the population variance charts, ward 11 is consistently below the target threshold, ward one is consistently above. I’m not sure, Madam Chair, if Dr. Williams or Mr. Valente can give us a quick population count on that boundary area, that would be helpful, I think, but I think it would slightly better balance the population.

[2:18:33] And from a communities of interest perspective, while I’m not the ward councilor, I do know a couple of people who live in that area, and I do know that they tend to gravitate more towards Wortley Village area and the old south than they do towards the Hamilton Road sort of community. And so I can see why there’s a logical community of interest argument to be made there as well. Again, it kind of comes down to, is the railway track the boundary or is the arterial road the boundary? There’s two sort of natural boundaries there and either one I think probably could have been picked. And so I don’t have a problem suggesting the railway instead of the arterial roadway.

[2:19:12] Thank you, so I did hear your question. I’ll go to Mr. Valente to see if he would be able to provide any information on the numbers. Yes, thank you. So the original proposal had about 1,500 people within, and then the addition of that townhouse complex added about another 1,000. So in all, it’s about 2,500 population moving from Wort 1 into Wort 11. Thank you, I’ll go back to the deputy mayor. Yeah, and so just in terms of looking at sort of the static numbers, when we look at Wort 11 in 2030, we’re roughly 32,000 in some change, the same in 2035, because it’s kind of landlocked at the moment.

[2:20:01] So there’s not a particular amount of growth coming in there. Whereas Wort 1 is at 43,000 and change in 2030, and then 44,000 in 2035. So a 2,500 person variance between those two, actually brings them both closer to the optimal range. So I find that that’s still fairly a minor impact in terms of the population variance, but actually brings them both a little bit closer to optimal. So I appreciate the quick response from our team at Watson and consultants on that, or Watson and associates on that.

[2:20:40] And I think that this is one I can support. Okay, thank you. I’ll go to Council Palosa, go ahead. Thank you, as a neighboring councilor in that area. Just cool kids me at the corner. I know that the population process Wellington Road to use the businesses there, and into Wortley in that, in my opinion, is also how they identify and use throughout that community. Ralph Math would leave Wort 11 from the second lowest population, adding 2,500 would move them into the third lowest for representation.

[2:21:16] So, and then as we already heard, Wort 1 was one of the highest. So looking for that population spread there over the years as we go. So happy with those numbers as well. And then knowing that the councilor’s support of it, I’m happy to support this as I think it’s pretty minor. Thank you. Thank you, I’ll go to Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes, and I was happy to second this for all the reasons kind of referenced. I think whoever represents this area will notice that there is a lot of correlation over Wellington Road, in fact, for the Old South Business Association catchment area.

[2:21:50] They do both sides of Wellington Road. So Old South Business Association already scoops up like staples and those businesses along Wellington on the east side. And given the rapid transit corridor, it’s going down Wellington that’s affecting both sides equally. I think it makes a lot of sense for perhaps there to be one shared representative. And again, regarding the population, given that Wort 11 is landlocked, although still growing with infill, lots of infill projects, but the population is much lower than some of the more suburban wards. So I think this makes sense. And I think again, having the train tracks be the barrier makes as much sense as having Wellington Road as an arterial road.

[2:22:28] So happy to support this in order to have like more cohesive numbers across the city and to have Wort 11 be brought up to being a more representative population size. Thank you, good Councilor Ferrera. Thank you. This one, I do like, you know, how this kind of maintains community interests. You know, the population variance was already spoken to, but that still does, Wort 11 will still be in the below optimal range. So it does get Wort 11 back closer to the optimal range. So that is a good direction.

[2:23:01] And I do see that it fits within the natural boundaries. And I do see that the neighborhoods there, and I have heard from the Councilor from the Councilor of Wort 11 that the neighborhoods do consider themselves part of the old South community. Again, it does take me to that kind of question of what is a minimal impact or a minor impact. So I would assume this is beyond that. So, but at the same time, we’re gonna get that information and I would be able to vote on that in the future. So because of that, I will be not supporting this at this time. That doesn’t mean I won’t be supporting it in the future.

[2:23:36] I just wanna have that extra information before I vote and support this amendment. Thank you. Go to Dr. Williams and ask him about the minor or not change. Thanks Presiding Officer. I think that’s a good idea. Thank you. Thank you. Dr. Williams, can you invite us with your insights on minor or not minor? There we are. Thank you. Again, a gray area. I think the one part that would be different as opposed to the earlier discussion is that this in fact allows the other principles to be better met by making that change.

[2:24:13] We’re getting to that moving toward parity. The other part I like about it, which we didn’t talk about and why it didn’t happen before. I think it’s a trade off in using certain lines, but the idea of Wellington Road, as I often refer to it, is a spine rather than a divider. To build a ward around a spine is important. So the numbers, yes, are larger than the other case. And again, the gray area, but it ticks off these other two boxes that are very strong features of a whole package, of wards, the five principles that are there.

[2:24:48] And here are two that are actually strengthened, even though there is that larger number. Again, doing it on the fly is an issue. And I appreciate that you’d like to know exactly what that means. But the indications that we’ve had already is that this will in fact improve the parity position of two of the wards, which to me is a very important strength. I’ll go back to Council Ferrera. And then I’ve got a small question from Councillor Frank, and then back to Councillor Trossa.

[2:25:21] Thank you. I do agree with those comments. I do see that just with the population variances, how it’s above the optimal range on Ward 1, could use some reduction. And I do see that, like I said, Ward 11 could use some increase. So I do see that this one fits a little bit better. But again, it’s in the right direction for me, but I just want to have that data driven decision making. So I am waiting for that, but this is something that I would most likely support. In the future. Thank you. I’ll go to Councillor Frank. In just a little comment, not a question, but I know that we’ve been referencing that a lot of the residents along the east side of Wellington do feel connection told south, which I think is true, but I also want to recognize they have a very strong community in that neighborhood called Roan Tree Park.

[2:26:03] And I think that that is very distinctive in its own. So keeping that together is important, but I just want if any of the residents who are watching in Roan Tree Park, they don’t think they necessarily like being called out south. So, but just want to make that distinction clear. They can, they feel part of it, but they have their own very strong community as well. Thank you. I’ll go to Councillor Trosto and then to Councillor Layman. Thank you through the presiding officer. I guess this is for consultants. Can you assure us that there’s not going to be any ripple effect coming from this?

[2:26:39] And it’s just one, it’s just two wards involved. Dr. Williams. As I understand the description that was provided earlier, that really is a trade off between one and the other. And it doesn’t have an impact on other wards. It’s moving a line that’s currently used as a boundary to another area that I don’t believe has that ripple effect. And certainly we would make sure that that’s clear in response to the kinds of concerns with Councillor Ferrer, that when this material comes back for you for Monday, which I hope is what’s going to happen, we would make sure that that reference is corroborated in the information we bring back to answer that very question.

[2:27:28] Thank you, Councillor Trosto, go ahead. Thank you through the presiding officer again. That’s a very helpful answer. You believe that you would be able to bring us this final information so we could close this at our council meeting, as opposed to having to carry it over to January. Dr. Williams. Again, with the support of Josh Valenti and the other team at Watson, I’m pretty sure that the kinds of things we’ve talked about today, especially in the latter amendments are fairly adaptable and could be brought back to you in a very straightforward report.

[2:28:08] As we said, I think Mr. Valenti said he could have the numbers by the end of the week, so some of us will have to work on the weekend, but we’ll have something for you, I’m sure for Monday morning. And it would again address those kinds of concerns. Finally then, I’ll just state that in that case, in that case, not thrilled about changes, but I will support this with the understanding that this is just a flip between two words that brings them into better numerical range with each other.

[2:28:46] I’m very impressed with what was said about Roundtree Park, and I think I understand the idea of not using the rapid transit line, not rapid transit, sorry. Yeah, the rapid transit line as a border, but rather as a spine, I think that makes a lot of sense. So for those reasons, I am going to support this. However, and this is a big however, I really wanna see this back at our table. So send this a bill if you need to, but I do wanna see this back at our table at the council meeting.

[2:29:29] Thank you, that was not council direction for Assembly Bill, I’ll go to Councillor Lehman, go ahead. Thank you for signing, Chair. So when we look at these things, there’s certain quantitative and qualitative measurements. Quantitative, I view as for sure a population balance, we can measure now the impact, and there are some projections going forward. Boundaries gets more and there’s choice between what constitutes a boundary tracks or major arteries, rivers, et cetera.

[2:30:04] But what I really view as important is a community of interest, and that is why I rely on the Councillors closer to it now in these discussions and in my, where my vote lands. So what I’ve heard from the Councillor whose ward has impacted is a very strong support, and she really defined the community’s interest benefit here. And I assume that Councilor of Ward 1 feels the same, ‘cause this was, as the Chair mentioned, this was originally one of, originated with him in his motion here.

[2:30:41] So for those reasons, I will support this. Thank you, any other speakers? Can’t see any online. Thank you with that, I’ll call the vote. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to one. Thank you, I’ll return the Chair to you, Deputy Mayor.

[2:31:18] Thank you for chairing that portion, Madam Vice Chair, and I don’t know if, if Councilor Trussell’s ward expense account has room for a bill from Watson Associates or not, but I know that the deadline for getting those in before the end of the year is December 17th. So you’ll have to work really quickly if you want to send that to Councillor Trussell. But moving on, so we now have a main motion that has been amended twice. So now we’re back on the main motion as amended and amended. So we’ve got both Councillor Frank’s adjustment and the Roan Tree adjustment from Councillor McAllister.

[2:31:55] We have had speakers prior, but we now have a somewhat different motion. So we are fresh on the list and gonna look for speakers now on the main motion as amended, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you with the indulgence of my colleagues here. I don’t want to make the assumption. I’m assuming that what I referred to earlier in terms of maintaining the Carling neighborhood was a major variance, but I’d hate to have made that assumption erroneously. So I’d like to confirm if the boundary of Ward 4 was moved from Oxford Street down to the tracks, what the population adjustment would be.

[2:32:33] I’m assuming it’s big with the apartment buildings, but there is a disparity in population between Ward 1 and Ward 4. It would maintain the integrity of the neighborhood and it would assist with the population. So if I could just find out through the chair, would that be considered major? What would be the population difference? I would appreciate that. The other option is to just take the McMahon area. There is a bit of a delineation where the Carling Heights Optimus Center.

[2:33:08] Councillor, we need one question for the consultants, please, and we haven’t had anything circulated on that. So as with the previous Ward 1 amendment, you can see how things can get if the language isn’t precise. Mr. Valente, I hope you’re still with us online. I don’t know if you’re able to that quickly, ‘cause I know we’ve had some discussion before we’ve gone to you prior. Are you able to indicate what the population between Oxford Street and the tracks would be if conveyed from Ward 1 to Ward 4?

[2:33:52] So the eastern and western borders would be Adelaide and Highbury and the southern border would move from Oxford to the Troyan tracks. I am here just to take a minute here, if you can make a minute or two and I can see what I can do. Absolutely, we can give you some time. As long as you’re not asking for 20 or 30 minutes, if you just need a minute or two to pull those numbers, we can certainly wait for you there.

[2:34:24] Perfect, thank you. Perhaps while Mr. Valente is doing that, Dr. Williams, I wonder if you could reiterate for us.

[2:35:10] And again, we’re talking about a great area with major and minor, but what the Council is indicating while we’re waiting for the population numbers is a change in a boundary, a natural boundary line from under a interior road to a railway line in maintaining potentially a community of interest. So it’s two wards impacted. There wouldn’t appear to be a ripple effect by a single conveyance from one word to the other. Without knowing the population numbers, can you comment on major or minor in terms of those other two principles while we’re waiting for those numbers?

[2:35:50] I believe you may have the numbers momentarily, but I think again, it’s part of the package. If this is an area that has traditionally had connections to one another, if there is a logical floor, whether it be through education or recreation or whatever, that they could belong together and they may nudge those population numbers toward an edge, again, it’s not that you have to have everything within 5%. That’s the goal. We try to get there, sometimes it won’t work. So again, depending on what we’ve found, nudging it over the line is not going to blow the whole thing up if I can put it that way.

[2:36:31] That’s not quite your question, Mr. Chair, but the idea is it’s part of a package and we need to figure out how that works. And if you don’t mind, I’ll just defer to Josh Valenti at this point. And I did see him turn on his camera. So Mr. Valenti, do you have some population numbers for us? Yep, so in that area, just south of Oxford to the rail, it’s about 4,400. So relatively large population dense area and looking at Ward 4, that would add the additional 4,400, bringing them up to from 33 to 30 to about 37, 6, 30, slightly above that optimal range, but within that 5%.

[2:37:18] And given the previous amendments on Ward 1 conveying 2,500 to Ward 11, you’d be conveying an additional 4,400. What does that do to, are you able to tell us with Ward 1’s population variance? That would bring that population down to about 35, so pretty well right on population parity, the optimal range there. Thank you for that, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I appreciate the information.

[2:37:55] There is a very strong neighborhood connection in the south of the tracks is Old East Village. North of the tracks is Carling neighborhood. We’ve got the Carling Heights Optimus Center there, that whole area, some of the streets connect north and south. They do get disconnected from their neighborhood area, and I understand it’s a large population difference, but I think it’s still, it puts Ward 1 into the, I don’t know what you call it, the ideal population level, and it puts Ward 4 a little bit higher.

[2:38:36] If it’s possible, I would like Council to vote on this. I think it’s important enough, and I think that for me to try to piece out a portion of that isn’t worth our time, because then there’s a connection east and west within that area south of the tracks, so I think it’s better all or nothing. I’ve got a point of order. Okay, Councillor Hopkins on your point of order, please. I feel uncomfortable having this conversation without the Ward 1 Councillor in the room.

[2:39:14] Just gonna, that out there. Okay, that’s not a point of order. It could be a point of personal privilege. I will use that one. But we’ll note that as a point of personal privilege. Without the Ward 1 Councillor presents, I can’t really get his feedback on that, but I’m gonna go back to Councillor Stevenson though, because you said you wanted to move that, and I just wanna come back to you, ‘cause we didn’t actually capture language, and I think that the language that you want to capture is that final option one be approved in principle with a minor amendment to the boundary between the proposed Ward 1 and the proposed Ward 4, so that the area contained between Oxford Street East to Highbury Avenue North to the Canadian Pacific Railway B one second.

[2:40:23] I think we’ve just got a word smithing issue here. Okay, so the area contained between Oxford Street East to Highbury Avenue North to the Canadian Pacific Railway to Adelaide Street North, completing the box, be incorporated into the proposed Ward 4 to better reflect communities of interest and balance of population.

[2:41:01] That’s been moved, do we have a seconder for that? Councillor Palobie. So that’s been moved and seconded, and it’s on the floor now for discussion. We’ll look for speakers on that. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I’ll just say a couple more things on this. It’s too bad the Ward 1 Councillor isn’t here. I’m inclined to think, I don’t wanna speak for him, but I’m inclined to think he would support it in that this is new, this was Ward 4 before. So this is allowing me to retain a complete neighbourhood rather than lose a part of a neighbourhood in addition to all of old East Village Kellogg’s, that whole area has shifted to Ward 1.

[2:41:37] So I do, and this is, Carne neighbourhood is a very tight community. It is, there is a lot of, they have a neighbourhood association, they do a lot of activities. The Carling Arena is north of Oxford Street. The Carling Heights Optimus Center is south of Oxford. So I’m asking for my colleague’s support. It does give me more of a population. But Ward 1 is really out there in terms of a high population, and I am asking to retain that entire neighbourhood. Further speakers, Councillor ramen.

[2:42:11] Thank you and through you. So I also know this community quite well from my time as a trustee, and I would agree with the Councillor on this. The one concern I would have though is, my concern would be that we have not had a chance to go out to the public on this. So I’m just wondering what would that look like if we were to ask for this to come back for January 17th is the opportunity to be able to look at that, having more engagement.

[2:42:45] It would just be that this information would be shared. Would it just be that the consultant would go out? Like what is the process? So as chair, the prospective process for me from a procedural standpoint would be that this would have to be referred to the 17th if you wanted time to collect public feedback and have a more fulsome report back from Watson and Associates.

[2:43:24] There is no additional component of public engagement contemplated between now and the SPPC meeting. It would simply be on the public agendas and it would be up to Councillors to share that information as they so choose to do. And as I indicated earlier around Councillor Stevenson’s budget question, they’re really, when we start talking about additional public consultations that exceeds the scope of the budget that we had approved for this project.

[2:44:00] Thank you. Would we hold any additional PPM on the 17th on any of the amendments? So there would still be, it would still come to SPPC so that certainly people could ask for delegation status. I’m gonna check with the clerk. My interpretation would be that they would have to seek delegation status because we’ve held our statutory PPM, but I’m gonna just take a moment to confer with the clerk on that.

[2:44:59] Okay, so quick conversation, there would be no advertising. They would just be the provided notice to the impacted area and it would be delegation status. It would not be another PPM. Thank you, that answers my question. I’m happy to support it. Councillor Trussell. Thank you through the, who’s chairing now? Is it the chair or the presiding officer? Through the chair. Would it be inappropriate for me to ask the mover or the motion why this was not brought forward earlier and is just coming to the council at the table?

[2:45:41] Because we, this is a substantial change. It’s a very, very big chunk of territory and it’s 4,400 people. So I’m just curious why we’re hearing about this now and not before the meeting. Yeah, so Councillor Palosa on a point of order? Yeah, I’ll let you make your decision ‘cause I would, I’m offended by that question myself that this is committee work at committee. So looking for your rolling that you can see what you will and then I might still have a problem. Okay, I’ll withdraw that then.

[2:46:16] I’ll just state my, I’ll just state my position. If, actually if you’ll allow me to rule on the point of order, Councillor, I, so Councillor Palosa, I agree with you that we’re doing committee work at committee. However, I would say that we are on the borderline here. I think it’s a legitimate question to ask the mover if there was a delay in bringing it forward. I appreciate and Councillor Truss, I was already indicated to withdraw. I think part of the commentary may have exceeded where we needed to go.

[2:46:53] So I think that it’s, I’m gonna partly uphold your point of order, but I am going to allow the Councillor to respond if she wishes, she’s not required to, but as to the reason that there wasn’t an ability to circulate a potential amendment ahead of time. Okay, thank you, I’m happy to respond. As I said, I assumed that it was a major change and we didn’t have time, we were informed there was no time for major changes based on the deadlines. So I made that assumption.

[2:47:27] I didn’t, as I see Councillor McAllister’s amendments come forward in these other ones. It made me realize that this was not a major change and that it was accommodated within the costs and within the timeframe and it gives that neighborhood an opportunity to stay together. And I think it’s really important. It is what we said is one of our most important things as we explored this. And so it had me put forward the option for this Council to consider it, to hear the feedback from our consultants and then to be able to make a change.

[2:48:02] So I’m very excited and grateful that Council has indulged me in this and that it’s a possibility to make this change. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Councillor Trussaud, would you like to continue now? Yes, I would. I’ll speak to this on the merits then. We did have an advertised public participation meeting and we received the number of representations to go on the added agenda. We received nothing on this issue. And people in the affected area had the opportunity to do that.

[2:48:37] People in the affected area and citywide had the opportunity to come to the public participation meeting. So I think while it may technically be in order to raise this at this meeting, I’m just going to oppose this on the merits, the merits including the fact that we heard nothing from any member of the public on this, even though they did have the same opportunity as everyone else in the city to come to this public participation meeting today.

[2:49:12] And if they can’t come to the public participation meeting to call the clerk or if they can’t do that to get a representation in for the added agenda. I’ve seen no evidence that that is something that anybody has been asking for. Thank you, so I’ll be opposed to this motion. Thank you, Councillor Trussow. Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes. I just want to say I’ll support this motion. It appears to me that Carlin Heights is a cohesive neighbourhood. I have gone through that area myself and I understand that just because Oxford kind of goes through it, it still maintains a character between both north and south side of Oxford.

[2:49:53] I do think again, it gets us closer to some general population parity and as well, I think that having a different landmark the train track instead of the road as the barrier still meets that. I do know that the population is more than the other two amendments we had, but again, I still think that it is important to keep communities together. So I’ll be supporting this. Councillor Ferra. Thanks, Chair. So I don’t want to be kind of making decisions on the fly, kind of what we’ve been speaking to before.

[2:50:27] And I do remember the chair sending out an email just to get our information in as soon as possible so we could actually do our diligence on this. I do see the arguments for the population parity. I do see the arguments for the natural boundary, but at the same time, that seems like it’s the only piece of information that I have. I would need to have a fully rounded kind of understanding before I would support something like this. I don’t see this as a minor change either. If 850 is potentially in the gray area for a minor change, then 4,400 must be within that area. So without the extra information, I don’t want to be supporting this.

[2:51:02] I don’t want to, I just really adverse to making changes on the fly when it comes to our word boundary review. So with that said, I would not be supporting this. Councillor Hopkins. I have a question through you, Mr. Chair. It looks like we are going to be, if this is supported heading towards the SPPC meeting for January 17th and question through you may be too, not sure who, would this allow for other amendments to come forward at the January 17th meeting?

[2:51:40] Is my question? So procedurally, my ruling on that would be no because we will be at our deadline. There will be no opportunity after January 17th for the consultants to go back and bring us any additional information to meet our legislatively required deadlines for OLT appeals to get things in place by. So the purpose of the January 17th referral would be only for a report back on the changes we’ve requested.

[2:52:14] Should Council next week decide that they’re not comfortable moving ahead? Council could decide next week to simply approve these as they are with the information that we get on the added agenda or they could decide that they want a bit more fulsome report to come back from Watson and Associates prior to making that decision. But when it got to the 17th, there would be no time for additional reports back. That’s why we’re approving in principle one of the options. In this case, it’s final option one that’s on the table.

[2:52:49] We’re approving that in principle only with these changes and these changes can come to us on council or we could choose at council to defer these to the 17th and make our decision then. I hope that’s helpful. I heard loud and clear from you, Mr. Chair, that today this afternoon are the amendments that are gonna be going forward to council. We have an opportunity then to approve these amendments or they continue to go to the SPPC meeting January the 17th. No further amendments will be made after this meeting.

[2:53:28] I just wanna make sure that is understood. That would be my intention in ruling as the chair. Obviously council could always challenge the chair and I’m in your hands. However, I would suggest that because we’re not able to meet our legislative deadlines, any other attempted amendments would quite honestly be an attempt at a take no action, which we have another path to in terms of a moving a take no action.

[2:54:01] Should this be defeated? Thank you for that. So as soon as I start feeling very uncomfortable going forward, I tend to resist motions that are coming to us as much as I would like to support this motion. I am feeling very uncertain as to the direction that we’re going in and therefore, and given that the war councilor is not even here to discuss the possible amendment, I won’t be supporting this. And if I may, just to follow up with that, when these amendments come forward to us, we will have to support them as a group as well.

[2:54:42] That’s what I heard prior to this discussion, but I wanna confirm that as well, that the amendments will be coming to us as one. Yes, so to help clarify that, and that’s a great question. At council next week, we will have two options. One option will be no changes. The consultants recommended final option by-law. The other by-law will be all the changes that we make today. Should we push it off to the January SPPC, and I’ve said repeatedly the 17th, and I have to correct myself, it’s the 14th, and the council is the 21st of January, so the final decision has to be done on the 21st of January at, should we not make a decision next week?

[2:55:33] Should we push it to January 14th? It is feasible, although it’s a lot of work, the clerks could pull it apart so that we could vote on one amendment and not another. But at council next week, we will have only two choices, all or none. If we push everything until the 14th, there could be an opportunity to have the clerks prepare multiple by-law variations to pull them apart.

[2:56:05] But there would be no opportunity to add new amendments. Thank you for that. I’m still very uncertain. As much as I wanna support the word counselor, I won’t be supporting this amendment. Councilor Palosa, and just so colleagues know, Councilor Stevenson has asked to be back on the list after folks have spoken of a first round, I will go back to her ‘cause she still has time left. Councilor Palosa. Thank you. I guess just thinking frankly that you didn’t hear from ward 12 rule residents today, and they’re moving to a complete different ward.

[2:56:42] I know they came out in at the drop-in session. I was there, and some of them have followed up independently, dead if they wrote you, but they wrote me. So I’m not gonna undermine what a ward counselor might have as private correspondence that they’re speaking to in their inbox, also realizing this process. Sometimes you know what you’re feeling, but until you get here and get clarification on what’s minor, what’s possible, glad that the counselor spoke up ‘cause this is the only time to do it really for the next decade plus as we grow.

[2:57:17] Hoping that the word counselor will take an opportunity to reach out to get letters of support from a community association or few people that can be ideal in the public agenda, but if not, even circulate to us and let people know about a delegation opportunity. Not mine in town, but was happy to support this to at least start by having the conversation at the appropriate time in this space. I am disappointed that an affected counselor isn’t here to help advance the city business of a long-term project that costs taxpayers a lot of time, but that’s a personal opinion.

[2:57:55] So hoping that that conversation can be had when this goes to council to, I’m just basing my decisions off of the information sense of the large disparity of population that was flagged when they were here to speak to it. So assuming that still stands and then hearing from the word for counselor of keeping a community of interest, united, regardless of who the representatives are in the future that that community has held together. So basing my comments on those two things and my support of just knowing what I knew prior and the information that’s come available now.

[2:58:38] Thank you, Councilor Palosa, Mayor Morgan, I have you next. Yes, I’ll be brief. So I don’t think colleagues should be afraid in moving some amendments that they’d like to see through the course of debate. Sometimes new ideas and new perspectives come up. I’m actually supportive of this particular amendment. And I’ll tell you what will happen if we didn’t quite get it right. There’s gonna be a bunch of news coverage, not a lot of other things exciting happening today. We’re either gonna get a whole bunch of letters at Council or not. We can choose to refer it then. Let’s say we proceed. There’s actually as the consultants about line significant recourse the public can take if they don’t feel we got the word boundaries right.

[2:59:15] That’s why we’re trying to get this done in time is ‘cause there’s actually an appeal period where the public if they don’t feel we got this right as elected representatives and we did something that neighborhoods don’t like, they can take it through a process and have part of it undone. So there’s multiple steps here in the process. And I think we could go back endlessly to do different consultations on different pieces of this. We’ve done some. We can make a decision. We can move forward, get some feedback before council and then ultimately we either get it right or wrong. But the one thing we know in this city is people don’t feel like we got the word boundary right.

[2:59:49] They’re gonna speak up and they’re probably gonna take it to a process and there are people in the gallery and on this council who have done that in the past. So I mean, they know how to do the process if they feel that it needs to be used and that’s what it’s there for. So I’m comfortable proceeding with this particular amendment and the process that we’ve outlined today. And I’ll be looking to see what people think after they see the results of the decisions we made today and what they might wanna give us feedback between now and council. And then there’ll be other opportunities in the future to take it through processes if they feel we didn’t get right.

[3:00:25] Thank you, Mayor Morgan. And just to clarify, to point from Council Plaza, there is an opportunity to get communications on the added agenda for Council if you submit before 9 a.m. on Monday morning. So if you’re watching at home, if you’re listening in the gallery as a member of the public, if you wanna comment on any of the changes that have been made so far today, or that may still be made, you can provide some written communication to us. That is absolutely an option should Council decide to ratify changes next week.

[3:01:00] We would still receive those prior to making that final decision. So looking for any other speakers who haven’t spoken before I go back to Councilor Stevenson. Seeing none, I’ll go back to Councilor Stevenson. Thank you. I just wanted to say in defense of the Carlin neighborhood residents, I did not communicate this, that their neighborhood was being split. I didn’t ask for them to come and advocate for this as I felt that it was not a possibility. So all of a sudden possibility opened up today.

[3:01:32] And there was an extreme snow over the last little bit. And I don’t know if everyone else was affected, but this area was very much affected. And between that and Christmas, I really think that we’re not splitting a neighborhood, we’re keeping it together. And I don’t anticipate any issue with this at all. Thank you, Councilor Stevenson. I have no other speakers. I will just say if committee will entertain just very briefly from the chair, I will certainly say the Argyle area got walloped by snow as well.

[3:02:09] But nonetheless, I was at Carlin Arena just this weekend for hockey. I agree with Councilor Raman’s points from the school perspective as well. This is a complete neighborhood. And so I’ll support this as well. And with no other speakers, I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Using the vote, motion carries 11 to three.

[3:02:50] Okay colleagues, so we’re back to the main motion. As amended, as amended, as amended. And I will look for other speakers on the main motion, knowing that Councilor Frank has one addition to make it the end. But I’ll ask her to hold that until I confirm there are speakers or not on the various amendments. And then we’ll come back to that final piece that she wants to bring forward. So any other speakers on final option one, as we’ve amended around wards one and 11, wards 11 and 13 and wards one and four.

[3:03:31] Councilor Raman. Thank you and through you. So in front of us is final option one. And I continue to have concerns with the assumptions that were used in order to get us to where we are. So within those assumptions, we, within those assumptions, the consultants brought in about 24,000 students into the population count. And the majority, more than the majority, about 20,000 of those students were then attributed to ward six.

[3:04:10] And that attribution then changed how the boundaries around ward six are impacted. And one of the concerns I have that it continues to remain is the change to ward seven to now be partially the existing ward seven split between ward five and ward seven. And it’s interesting because the two options that were preferred from the community engagement were option three and option four.

[3:04:47] And option four at 30% and 30%. And option four kept ward seven up to Gainesboro in tact. And what I heard from residents was, if there were some minor tweaks, that that would be acceptable in order to get us to a more consistent look to the ward that they recognize. One of the main reasons for that as we talk about communities of interest, this is actually a really interesting topic, I think from communities of interest, because a lot of what I heard from residents was, we haven’t even had time to have communities of interest because a lot of these are newer neighborhoods.

[3:05:27] They’re establishing themselves, they’re finding their ground, they’re newer in place, but where they do find communities of interest just around their schools. And now within these changes in ward seven and ward five we’re making significant changes that impact schools. Some of our schools right now, St. Catherine of Sienna, while they await a new school to be built in the northwest part of the city, that population has now went to school with each other for almost five years, and now they will be into an entirely new ward as well.

[3:06:01] So communities of interest, I think is a really interesting defining point. One of the things I asked for that was not able to get beforehand was demographic information related to the neighborhoods in ward five, similarly to what I have in ward seven based on neighborhoods. And the reason for that is, not only do we have significant growth in these communities, but I can tell you from the data that I’ve looked at in ward seven, we have significant language, English as a second language, we have a significant increase in population, we have a lot of newcomer populations into the ward, and other things that are, I would say defining in the way that people engage from in voting and engage in the community.

[3:06:51] So I do think that we have some underlying issues in terms of the data that has therefore informed the way that we’ve made these decisions. I will also speak to a small pocket at the corner of Wonderland and Fanshawe that has moved between ward six and ward seven and now ward five in a very short order time. And again, I’m not sure, I don’t represent that area right now, haven’t heard from them directly from this consultation, but I do know there is a strong neighborhood association close by ward six and that community association does not represent that group, and I’m not sure how much that neighborhood was involved and engaged in this conversation, which then again, changes their boundary.

[3:07:45] The other thing I’ll speak to is, I do see that it makes some sense to wrap around the river, especially up to what is the current boundary four, ward seven and ward five at Richmond. But as we get into around Windermere Road, continuing that wraparound creates this awkward jet around University Hospital, that I’m not sure how that interplays, but with the conversations we’re going to have around master mobility plan. I need to think about what’s going to happen around Western Road as well and how that influences.

[3:08:20] The other thing is from a timing perspective, I would like to get some clarity, because to me, I always work best when I have a drop dead date, so I’d love to hear from the consultant on what he thinks the drop dead date is. Dr. Williams. Just clarify that last question, please. A date for. Councilor Raman, your microphone, Dr. Williams. Thank you, I’m looking for what you would consider a drop dead date for a final decision from council, in order to satisfy an appeal.

[3:09:00] Dr. Williams. Thank you. I can confirm with the advice given earlier by the chair of the meeting that there is a deadline that we’re trying to meet as early as possible. After, I think after the date we’re talking about, which was in the beginning of the meeting was in the January period, that the question of meeting the deadline becomes problematic. There are a number of hurdles involved. There’s an appeal period. If an appeal comes at the end, it’s got to go into the queue at the Ontario Land Tribunal.

[3:09:35] Who knows what else they’re dealing with on all kinds of topics. So the question of actually getting a review done in time becomes a challenge. And moreover, the longer that’s pushed back, the more difficult it becomes for your staff to begin to plan for the next election. And the things that go around this, let alone the naming idea that would have to happen. So it’s not that there is a final date that the board would never accept an appeal, but there is a process that we know can be long and fairly detailed that we need to be aware of to make sure that, as has been put, this has been a long involved comprehensive process.

[3:10:20] You don’t want to have it fall down because there’s been a delay in getting to a decision that the board can’t answer in the time that we’ve got. So I’m not prepared to say it’s got to be February 1st or nothing, but I confer, concur rather with the chair’s initial direction about getting this done in January. Councilor Roman. Thank you. Okay, yeah, I understand.

[3:10:53] And I thank you, I appreciate that answer. And I understand we have administrative deadlines as well to meet in terms of the next election. I will reiterate that I have concerns for residents of ward seven as they are now displaced into half of a different ward and what that will mean for them in terms of a lot of things. You know, if you think about the conversations we’ve been having in the ward for the past well, two terms at least, we’ve been talking about new community centers, potentially new libraries.

[3:11:29] We’ve been talking about an expansion on Sunningdale Road. We’ve been talking which will now entirely be in ward five. We’ve been talking about a lot of growth in the northwest part of the city. And I think that there’s a weakening of the advocacy position for separating these communities. And that is something that I know will be something that we’ll need to work on. And I do hope that this follows following this decision. If we do go ahead, it looks like we’re with option one. That we will consider that we did divide a ward and bring it into another.

[3:12:07] And where we have done that across the city, we need to consider what kind of neighborhood dollars are we putting forward? What kind of strategies for engagement will we do to try to bring the ward together to understand these changes? Because when these options, the four preliminary options went out, I did ask because it was a significant change to ward seven for a mailing to go out to the ward. Because it was so significant and was told that that was not possible at the time. So I do think that we have to be very clear that we are making significant changes at the time.

[3:12:42] The other thing I will say from the socioeconomic perspective, one of the things I hear quite often is the northwest part of the city is quite well off. And I think that we’re exacerbating that by these divisions, by the lines we’re drawing around ward five, we have to consider what is the socioeconomic mix at the time that we make this change as well. Thank you, Councilor, looking for other speakers. Sorry, Dr. Williams.

[3:13:15] If I may, I’d like to just point out a couple of aspects of the comments that have just been made. We’re not displacing communities. The communities will always be there. What we’re doing is regrouping them for the purposes of electing members of city council. And we’re trying to do that as carefully and as thoroughly as we can. Dr. Williams, can I ask you to hold on just a moment, Councilor ramen. Dr. Williams, can I get your microphone, please? Through you, Chair, I wasn’t asking a question and I feel like we’re now entering debate.

[3:13:58] So I think there is some debate around communities of interest. I think Dr. Williams, though, if you had comment about the underlying data piece, that is fair comment in terms of the student population. But I think with the communities of interest that may be entering into debate. So if we can just stay with the underlying data comments if you had something to offer there. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My apologies. I didn’t intend to get into debate. I was trying to pick up on comments about the nature of the information that was underlying the proposals that we made.

[3:14:38] And I wanted to make it very clear that questions of communities of interest as I’m hearing it, and I’m not getting the language just right off the cuff here. But our mandate is related to using population data people. We’re counting people. We’re not talking about whether they’re young or old or rich or poor or any of those things. It’s people we’re looking for. That’s what goes into the combination of the awards that we’re drawing.

[3:15:09] We don’t delve into the question of their background. That’s not data that we would have. And moreover, it’s not part of the terms of reference for the guiding principles, rather, for the review. It is population and community is really a largely about a geographic entity. Although there are some things that are mixed into that. We’re talking about how people are distributed across the city and we have not entered into some kind of an analysis of the kinds of things that the counselor is raising.

[3:15:43] They’re important for the community. They’re not necessarily part of what we are being asked to look at. And I would hesitate to make this a generality. But I doubt very much that there’s any process of electoral redistribution that takes that into account in Canada. We don’t probe into those kinds of questions as to who the residents happen to be. We’re looking at residents. So we don’t have that information. And we would not use it as part of what we would do to draw up boundaries of particular wards.

[3:16:20] There are other factors that are all, if you will, on the ground, the nature of housing, the density, and that sort of thing. That’s covered under community of interest, but not the kinds of things that the counselor is raising. So we don’t have answers to that because it’s not part of what we were also looking at. And the other point about student population, I know there’s been a lot of anxious comments and whatever about what numbers are right and where do they live and all that sort of thing. I would suggest on behalf of the Watson team that the allocation of those students was done in consultation with officials from both the university and the college and city staff as to where that distribution of population should be considered, not in the sense of drawing the lines, but where are they?

[3:17:13] What can you tell us about where they are? We didn’t make those numbers up. We didn’t— I don’t believe we assigned them arbitrarily on the basis of what we thought we knew. We worked with advice from others to make that allocation and draw the lines around what we did have available to capture that particular part of the community. Thank you, Dr. Williams, for that. Looking for other speakers with any on final option one and the amendments that we have passed as a committee, not as a council, but as a committee, looking for any further comment on that.

[3:18:01] I’m not going to ask the clerk to open the vote yet because Councilor Frank wants to consider one final amendment that is not related to changing word boundaries but is related to the word boundary review process. So I will go to Councilor Frank for her next motion. Thank you and appreciate everyone’s patience. I outlined it in my correspondence, but essentially kind of at every stage of this process, I’ve been asking when can we have a discussion about naming conventions. In London, obviously, right now we use the numbers 1 to 14, plus a mayor, but I have been chatting with colleagues from across Canada and many other cities and municipalities use various conventions, so whether it’s the numbers and a name or actually they don’t have any numbers, they’re just names.

[3:18:45] But I am really interested in seeing after we’ve decided what the boundaries are and the wards are and it’s gone through any potential challenges. If we are able to review a various set of options of different names, and I kind of outlined some suggestions, whether they’re landmarks, major streets, historical locations, even through the idea of naming them after trees. So we’re in the forest city, there’s 14 wards, maybe we name them after a different native species in the city, because based on when I talk with other residents, they don’t necessarily know the number of their ward. They know who they’re counselors most of the time, but they don’t know like, oh, I’m a ward 6 resident, I’m a ward 13 resident, and I feel like it’s because numbers don’t necessarily convey a sense of place, whereas naming things do.

[3:19:28] So my motion as outlined in the circulated correspondence is simply asking staff to explore a variety of naming convention options and coming back with a report for us to review. I know it’s a bit of work for staff, so I think them in advance of this moves forward, but it doesn’t tie us necessarily to any of those. If we get back a report and we don’t like any, we don’t have to go with them, but I just would really love to have the discussion because I think sometimes people want to feel like they belong and I think people feel like they belong when they can actually name kind of their ward in their area.

[3:20:02] So I don’t know if I have a seconder, but I have, I think the motion is an E-Scribe. Okay, awesome, and happy to answer any questions. So there is a new, there is a motion, it is vote nine in E-Scribe to add a new part, language is in there, it’s moved by Councillor Frank, we’ll look to see if there’s a seconder. Councillor Ferrero will second, so that’s on the floor, and looking for any discussion.

[3:20:38] Councillor Trussow. This is gonna seem contradictory, but I love the idea, but I hate how this is gonna turn out, ‘cause if you’re really worried about excluding somebody, you better get them all. So I’m thinking about what my ward, but my ward, for example, would be called, much less some of the other ones. There’s no practical way of doing it with the neighborhoods without excluding somebody unless you wanna have a pretty long name.

[3:21:14] The other point I wanna make is statutorily, and please, staff, or somebody, correct me if I’m wrong, we don’t really have to make this decision as immediately. I mean, this is something that the clerk is gonna wanna know before election materials go out, but in terms of the municipal act is concerned, and our obligation to have the ward boundaries done, this is something that really, I don’t think should be tied to this motion. I’d rather pass this motion, or not pass this motion, or whatever, and then come back to this as a separate question, but I’m uncomfortable, or tying it to this motion, because we’re not gonna resolve this by January.

[3:21:58] So, Councilor, I can advise you that while you were speaking, the clerk said you are correct. It is not statutorily required, and that in the 2026 election, we would be using numbers, because this is not likely to be resolved in time for them to implement it for the 2026 election. Looking for other speakers, Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, I don’t wanna repeat everything that Councilor just said. I’d love the idea, but I am, as I look at Fortnine, we have many, many unique neighborhoods, and I do not see a consensus as all to a name.

[3:22:38] Happy to play around with names, but I really feel uncomfortable tying it to this motion. Other speakers? Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, I’ll just say to you, it sounds like a nice idea, but with so many problems we have in this city to get into that kind of discussion and involvement and stuff. I think there’s nothing stopping us from having nicknames or something for our awards. Potentially, I think many of them do anyway. We reference ourselves by our neighborhoods.

[3:23:11] I think it’s a nice idea, but I’m not gonna be supporting it. Other speakers? Councilor Raman. Thank you, and through you, I won’t be supporting the name change, I agree. I’d like the idea, but worry that, again, it takes us into 2026 without having consistency. The other thing is just looking at the survey data, 38% of 254 people said they preferred numbers, same amounts that they preferred names. So it wasn’t unequivocally preferring of names, but I do think also we haven’t tried it, so that’s part of the reason why we probably got that result.

[3:23:48] But ultimately, I think at this time, attached to this particular motion, I wouldn’t support it, but I might consider it in the future. Any other speakers? Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes, and my hopes of doing it now would be to give staff enough time to do the work to come up with a variety of options and then do the community engagement with sufficient times for 2026, which is why I brought it forward at this moment. I’m curious, so if this fails here, and then it’ll, I guess, be approved to not move forward at council, would then we’d have to wait a full 12 months because we know, or is that we can still bring it up in a month from now, or two months from now, once we have more information?

[3:24:38] So if this dies at committee, it doesn’t go to council, so it’s not a decided matter of council, ‘cause council hasn’t voted. Any further speakers? Seeing none, then I’m gonna ask the clerk to open the vote on this. Opposing the vote, motion fails, two to 12.

[3:25:18] Thank you, colleagues. Most of us have spoken on the main motion as amended. Most of us have used the majority of our time, if not all of it, looking for any final comments before I ask the clerk to call the vote. I’m seeing none, so I’m gonna ask the clerk to open the vote. Opposing the vote, motion carries 13 to one.

[3:26:09] Thank you, colleague, and thank you, especially to the Lambeth folks for your patience up in the gallery. While we had a rather lengthy debate on this, it still has to be ratified by council at our next council meeting. But right now, option one with some changes, which I’m happy to report to the Lambeth folks, do not impact Lambeth. We’ll be going forward to the council meeting. And of course, you’re welcome to stay and enjoy the rest of our debate on the other issues, but you’re also welcome to put your jackets on, as I see some of you doing now. And we’re gonna move on to our next item on the agenda.

[3:26:43] We’re moving into items for direction now. And council trust, we have a scheduled dinner break coming at 5.30. We only have some items for direction to get through. I think if people require just a quick run out to take a bio break, if they want to do that, while the proceedings are continuing, that might be more efficient for us, if that’s okay. So we’ll just, yes, we won’t mark you as having left the meeting, if you do need to leave briefly to refresh, please feel free to do so.

[3:27:22] We’re gonna continue on with our agenda. And the next item on the agenda is 4.1. That’s the London Convention Center Corporation, RBC Place London, By-law Update and Appointments. And I’m gonna look for quorum first. We have quorum, as a couple of councilors have left for a quick refresher, but we are going to look for a mover and a seconder for the RBC Place Amendments. Councillor Frank, Councillor Cuddy. Okay, so those recommended changes, or those requested changes are on the floor.

[3:28:21] Councillor Frank, as the mover, can I ask you to please stay until this item’s dispensed with, and looking for any discussion, seeing none, that I’m gonna ask the clerk to open the vote on 4.1. Closing the vote, motion carries 11 to one, Councillor Stevenson, Trossa, and Ferrera, absent.

[3:29:21] Thank you colleagues, moving on. Item 4.2 is the Growth Management Implementation Strategy and Municipal Service Financing Agreements Policy Amendments. You have the staff report. We also have a request for delegation status from Mr. Wallace, so I’m gonna look for a motion to approve the delegation, moved by Councillor Palosa, and seconded by Councillor Hopkins, and I will ask the clerk to open the vote on that. Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to zero.

[3:30:04] Thank you colleagues. Mr. Wallace, welcome to SPPC. Thank you, Chair. You have five minutes for your delegation, and you can proceed when ready. Thank you, I shouldn’t be terribly long. I do wanna say, I did appreciate the debate that just went on this afternoon. Many moons ago, when I was a Councillor, I led the charge of moving a Councillor from 17, including the mayor to seven, including the mayor and went from eight words to six. The debate was much more adamant at that point, ‘cause half of them were losing their jobs. But anyways, we won nine eight on that, just wanna point that out.

[3:30:38] But on the issue of the GMS update and the municipal services financial agreement report, I wanna let you know that we wanna thank staff for involving us through the DC reference group and forming us of the changes. We are okay with the changes that going forward with using adding the intensification issues on the GMS side for the PAB, the Bill Terry boundary. And we do agree with the principles that are in this document.

[3:31:18] The only other thing I’d like to say, Mr. Chair, I think I was somewhat misinterpreted at the committee myself and there was a paragraph in here. I just wanted to clarify. The MSFA or the municipal services financing agreements are a tool that are on the books here and on the books virtually everywhere that allow for a developer to, instead of using the GMS program and move something forward and pay for it up front on their own. You need fairly deep pockets that happen to start with and it doesn’t happen that often.

[3:31:53] But even in your own report here, it says that it’s somewhat of an onerous process. We don’t have time to do it now. And I don’t mean, I’m not asking you to direct staff to do anything, but I think going forward, particularly if things change in the near future with urban growth boundary changes, that a review of that municipal services financing policy, to see if we can make it a tool that could possibly be used to accelerate housing development in certain areas.

[3:32:31] Of course, we’re not interested in the concept of leapfrogging and you can’t do that based on the GMS, particularly in the principles that are out here. So we’re not opposed to having the same sort of principles attached to that kind of document, but my past experience is that misspellies I’ve been at before, it’s actually been used to move things. And even if going forward, if things are infrastructure issues in the Delta A boundary and there’s a developers willing to spend his own, or her own money to move something on faster that it doesn’t make the DC a bylaw, that might be an option that you as a council should consider.

[3:33:14] So all I’m asking is that there was a paragraph in here to date the city has not entered into an MSFA with a landlord or a required parties. And it gives a lot of credit to the GMS program, which is fair, but it’s also in the same document, talks about our owners, the current processes here. And I’m asking that from the industry’s perspective that going forward in the future, if there’s an opportunity to look at this to see if we can make this tool more acceptable to both sides of the table, we’d be interested in sitting at the table and having that discussion.

[3:33:54] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Wallace. So I’m gonna look for colleagues for motion, Councillor Frank on the staff recommendation, and a seconder for that, Councillor Cuddy. So the staff recommendation, all four clauses are on the floor, looking for any debate or discussion, and we’ll start with Councillor Frank, and then go to Councillor Layman. Thank you, I just wanted to say I’m delighted to see this, and I like that we are now gonna be able to allocate DC charges to intensification projects.

[3:34:30] So thank you for whoever worked on it, I think it’s a great idea. Councillor Layman. Thank you, and just a question through you, Chair, to staff, when would the process start for 2026 GMIS planning? And we’ll go to Mr. Mathers for that. Through the Chair, so the GMIS process starts every year in the first quarter of the year, and then culminates in a report to Committee and Council in June of that year.

[3:35:05] Councillor Layman. Thank you for that. There was a communication received from Zalinka Priammo, and that was down in the next item regarding the housing accelerator front, and I’d like to bring that forward now, if possible, and make an amendment to the motion in front of us. And what I’ll do is I’ll read that amendment out, Chair, if that’s okay, and then I’ll look for a second or not, the clerk already has the wording, but I’ll read it out anyway.

[3:35:39] That correspondence from Zalinka Priammo regarding 3095 and 3105 Bostwick Road Talbot Village, be referred for consideration during the 2026 Growth Management Implementation Strategy process. Councillor ramen, you’ll second that. Okay, I just need to check work, ‘cause I understand how the two are related. We’re kind of out of order on where they are on the agenda, but I understand that you wanna direct it to the 2026 GMSI planning, so I just need a moment to check with the clerk here.

[3:36:54] Okay, so I’m just gonna quickly check with Mr. Mathers, the communication with respect to the Housing Accelerator Fund also is, in my opinion, as chair materially related to this item as well. That’s a chair’s opinion, and I wanna go to the deputy city manager to see if he can perse that the communication could be materially related to this just as easily as to the next item. So rather than referring it from the next item to here, if we can just insert it here, if that works for you, Mr. Mathers.

[3:37:34] Through the chair, yes, very similar content, and it’s gonna get it to the right place, so I align with your comments. Okay, then we’ll deem that in order. That’s been moved in seconded, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I do have a question through you, Mr. Chair. I know the GMIS process usually starts around March or so, and staff reach out to all the developers in the community. I know there’s a lot of development. This is in Ward 9, and there’s a lot of developments going on. By doing this, there’s no leapfrogging or getting in the way of other requests, ‘cause there usually are a number of requests that come through the GMIS process, and I’m referring to Warren Clef and developments along that way.

[3:38:23] I just wanna make sure by doing this that we aren’t putting anything ahead of anyone, given that we meet with all developers and communities of interest. Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, so with any process that we go on an annual basis, we take a look at those principles to make sure that we’re not gonna have that leapfrogging, that it’s appropriate extension and development. So this would be in line with being able to consider as part of that process, as we do with annually.

[3:38:58] Mr. Hopkins, good. Other speakers, Councillor Layman. Thank you, I’ll just provide a brief reasoning behind this. It caught my eye because it’s proactive, and as I spoke to when we rezoned that property for a regional sports area, what I liked about it is getting ahead of, before development gets into place, that we get proper planning ahead of the curve. So we’re not forced into jamming things in.

[3:39:34] And here was an example of opportunity to extend to chunks who are, major chunks who are along Pac Road, that potentially could get the work done when the road’s torn up at the beginning, as opposed to going back five years from now, or whatever, and redoing that road at considerable cost, and not to mention the construction impediments that are, you know, this is what I’m going to have to do with a daily basis. The other reason is, you know, the half funding is available now, and I don’t know when it’ll be available five years, and this is an opportunity now to perhaps get access to that funding.

[3:40:12] I didn’t want to leapfrog anything, ‘cause the motion or the amendment says for consideration. So let’s get it into the 2026 GMIS process, along with all the other considerations that staff are doing as well. So it’s a timely looksee at this potential to save money, get the infrastructure in place to add more units of housing in a timely manner. Thank you, Councilor, any other speakers? I see none, so I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote.

[3:41:00] Yes, the votes, yes. I’m saying the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero. Okay, so we’re now on the main motion as amended with that new part E, looking for any further discussion before we call the vote. Seeing none, then I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote. I’m saying the vote.

[3:42:00] Motion carries 13 to zero. I will note that Councilor Van Mirbergen has left the meeting. Thank you, colleagues. And Councilor Van Mirbergen did indicate to me that he was leaving for a medical appointment, so I’m not sure if he will be rejoining us or not, depending on how long that takes. And we only have one item left on the agenda, so hopefully he won’t be rejoining us before we dispense with that. The final item on the agenda is 4.3, the Housing Accelerator Fund First Annual Update.

[3:42:37] And I’m just going to go to Mr. Mathers to give us a quick introduction to this item. Through the chair, thank you very much. Last September, the City of London received $74 million in housing accelerator funding. So today we’re here to provide you some details of the status of the work to date. And provide you actually some really great news as well. So in order to receive the funds, there was a few requirements you had to meet. So you had to undertake a series of housing initiatives, and you also had to meet annual housing construction targets. So I’m extremely happy to report that our city team has successfully completed the bulk of the work required, regarding all the housing initiatives.

[3:43:19] So there’s 32 different milestones, the 39 milestones, and we’ve met 32 of those to date. And we’re expecting to complete the rest within the first quarter 2025. In addition to completing all of this initiative work, London has also exceeded our first year target by more than 150 units, so also very great news. The report also goes through and provides some details on the investments to date. So we brought forward approximately $40 million worth of housing support of programs. With the majority of that, the remaining funding flagged to be committed by the end of Q2 of 2025.

[3:43:57] I just want to highlight the monumental amount of work that’s going on to be able to support this initiative. Wonderful to have this funding, and it’s wonderful to be able to move this work forward. And I just will remind you that this is also progressing at the same time as we’re doing a lot of really wonderful things as far as meeting all the other housing-related work that we do. So we’ve issued 160% more permits than we did at this point last year. And council has, we’ve brought forward to council as of last the November council meeting, 300% more units for council approval than the prior year.

[3:44:37] So I’m just, just want to highlight, I’m very exceptionally proud of our team and all the hard work this year to accelerate housing in London. And I’m very happy to bring this report to you today. Thank you, Mr. Mathers. I’m going to look to see if there’s a mover and a seconder to receive this. Moved by Councillor Frank and seconded by Councillor Cuddy, that has been put on the floor now for discussion. So looking for any comments, questions, Mayor Morgan. I’ll just make a few comments, sorry, gotta cut you off. Mr. Wallace had a delegation request for both items.

[3:45:12] So before we get a motion on the floor and Councillor Frank and Councillor Cuddy, I’ll hold you to that mover and seconder. We will look for motion to approve the delegation status, Councillor Palosa, Councillor Stevenson. We’ll ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to one.

[3:45:52] Thank you, with apologies, Mr. Wallace, you did include both requests on your communication. You have five minutes when you’re ready. Yeah, this is really a thank you to staff. Often what happens is you get money from different levels and there’s a whole bureaucracy to get the money out the door and things are slow. And we’ve been, as an industry, we’ve been working with the Scott and his staff and we’ve been looking to see where the progress was and this is an excellent report.

[3:46:27] And so we just really wanna be on record a thanking staff for actually getting things done using the half of money and we wanna be on record to say that it’s great to have it committed. We still have to get the projects done and we need to get them done before the next federal election just in case things change on these programs. So we really appreciate this report because I’ve sent it out to my group and I think probably that letter that you just referred to in the previous, got generated from that Senate, but everyone was pretty supportive of what was happening from the Heights piece, the CIP on conversions, all those things we think have gone a long way in promoting the opportunity that we see Lenin has for creating more housing.

[3:47:22] And I do thank you for Mr. Chair for cutting off the America allow me to speak. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Wallace. And we will now have Councilor Frank and Councilor Cuddy move the staff recommendation to receive the report and I will go to Mayor Morgan. Thank you. So I’ll just remember that for my future delegation votes. And I wanna make some comments and I actually appreciate what Mr. Wallace said because he’s gleaned into a couple of comments that I wanted to make on this too.

[3:47:57] You know, the comment was mentioned about, let’s get stuff done before the next federal election. You know, there are always programs, you know, federally, provincially that as you approach elections will come under scrutiny for different reasons. Often it’s different parties wanting to rebrand programs as their own by, you know, taking apart what the previous did and shifting it. But at a base level, what a program is is a transfer of money to municipality to actually get things done. And the best thing we can possibly do with the money that’s been given to us is focus on our commitment to actually create housing.

[3:48:33] And to at this point be not only creating housing but with some creativity in the programs, trying some new things, doing some try to and true items, speeding up processes and actually producing results that are tracking beyond a target, a target that I would say initially was criticized as one that might be difficult to meet. And we still got a long way to go, is a testament to our staff pitching legitimate quality ideas that we knew that we could execute on that would actually achieve the goals of moving the numbers forward beyond where they were. So the application and framing and committing to the things that we would do is the reason why we’re having success now.

[3:49:14] It was the thoughtful deliberation of our staff consulting with the industry to figure out how should we apply to this program, which had a lot of flexibility in it and has a lot of flexibility between the envelopes that we’ve actually got funding within. We can move things towards the things that we know are working. We can shift it away from the things that we know aren’t working, as long as we stay within the general buckets of what we applied for. And so what Mr. Mathers and his team have demonstrated is we found some things that we know how to create units beyond what we might even thought we would do. And we found a way to get the money out the door and we found a way to make it really effective.

[3:49:49] And we found some things that work really well. I mean, there’s some other things that maybe we need to give some more time and get some more traction on. But I think we’re well positioned to actually take what was money that we made a commitment to and actually fulfill that commitment. And at a base level, it’s pretty hard to criticize that. And so I have a lot of compliments for our staff and your staff teams and please pass it on, Mr. Mathers, to them. And I think, you know, at the end of the day, we’ll continue to push forward with housing creation, whether it’s this fund or other monies that become available eventually or federally in the future. What we are learning here is we’re starting to know how to speed up processes, how to make investments that work, how to actually create units on the ground.

[3:50:28] And at the end of the day, I don’t know of any party or any level of government who doesn’t align with that priority on housing right now. So kudos to Mr. Mathers and his team. Thank you for the update report. Again, I know we’ve got a long way to go, but this initial update on how far we’ve come since the announcement of this program is impressive and I appreciate the work that’s been done. Thank you, Your Worship, looking for other speakers on this item. Seeing none, and I think that it’s worth recognizing the whole teams here.

[3:51:05] Ms. McNeely, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Felberg, Mr. Adema, Mr. Macbeth, I don’t have my glasses on, so if I’m missing somebody, I apologize. But I think that it’s great that the whole team is here to hear how much we appreciate the work you’ve done. And Councillor Frank would like us to suspend, suspend our procedural orders to just give you a round of applause. So having no other speakers on the speakers list, I will ask the clerk to open the vote.

[3:51:59] Building the vote, motion carries 12 to one. Thank you, colleagues. That concludes our items for direction. We have no deferred matters or additional business. We have no Councillor Trussa. I’ll give us just a moment. So it was just an error, Councillor. Thank you for pointing that out.

[3:52:30] The clerks will correct that in the record. So we have no deferred matters or additional business. So I’m gonna look for a motion to adjourn. Moved by Councillor Hopkins and seconded by Councillor Frank. We can do this by hand. All those in favor? Motion carries. Colleagues, we are, is a Christmas dinner for us this evening. It was scheduled for a 5.30 break. I understand it will be ready a little bit early, but you have about 20 to 25 minutes.

[3:53:08] And if you’d like to make your way up to the 12th floor, we will take a little bit of holiday festivity together before we adjourn informally for the evening to head home.