February 18, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting was called to order at 1:00 PM.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Trosow

That Items 2.1 to 2.9 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (3 to 0)

2.1   2nd Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee

2025-02-06 AWCAC Report

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the 2nd Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on February 6, 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.2   Urban Forest Health - Status of Pests and Pathogens

2025-02-18 SR Urban Forest Health - Status of Pests and Pathogens

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Trosow

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated February 18, 2025, related to Urban Forest Health Status of Pests and Pathogens:

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to engage local arborists and forestry service providers to establish a working group to coordinate pest and pathogens monitoring and associated responses;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to implement a community-based monitoring program to aid in the early identification of forest pests and pathogens; and,

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to seek funding opportunities from the Federal and Provincial governments to off-set the costs associated with the management of infected trees and/or the planting of replacement trees. (2025-D05)

Motion Passed

2.3   2024 Administrative Amendments to the Traffic and Parking By-law

2025-02-18 SR 2024 Administrative Amendments to the Traffic and Parking By-law

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Trosow

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 18, 2025, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 4, 2025 for the purpose of amending the Traffic and Parking By-law (PS-114) with respect to the 2024 Administrative Amendments. (2025-T02/T08)

Motion Passed

2.4   Appointment of Consultant Engineer for Dingman Sports Park and RFP2024-092

2025-02-18 SR Appt of Consultant Engineer for Dingman Sports Park - Part 1

2025-02-18 SR Appt of Consultant Engineer for Dingman Sports Park - Part 2

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Trosow

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated February 18, 2025, related to the Appointment of a Consultant Engineer for Dingman Sports Park and RFP 2024-092:

a)    the price submitted by Stantec Consulting for Contract Administration and Site Inspection Services for the Dingman Sports Park project of $711,100.00 (excluding HST) BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the price submitted by the Consultant meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

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

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

d)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2025-R05)

Motion Passed

2.5   Approval of Single and Sole Source Agreements for Operations and Management of Three City of London EnviroDepots

2025-02-18 SR Approval of Single and Sole Source Agmts for EnviroDepots

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Trosow

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated February 18, 2025, related to the Approval of Single and Sole Source Agreements for Operations and Management of Three City of London EnviroDepots:

a)    the pricing submitted by Try Recycling Inc., through a negotiated single source agreement in accordance with Section 14.4(d) and (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy as outlined below, BE APPROVED:

i)    provide Oxford Street and Clarke Road EnviroDepot Operations and Management services for a term of one (1) year and a one (1) year extension option at the sole discretion of the City starting January 1, 2025 at an estimated cost for the one-year term of approximately $1,523,000; it being noted that the agreement contains a combination of fixed rate and unit rate prices and an inflation rate escalation provision for 2026; and,

ii)    a one-time estimated cost of approximately $62,500 to alter the Try Recycling Inc. site located at 3544 Dingman Drive to safely and efficiently accept EnviroDepot customers while the City of London owned Clarke Road EnviroDepot is under construction in 2025; it being noted about half of the infrastructure improvements are transferable and will be used as part of Waste Management site operations once the Clarke Road EnviroDepot is re-opened;

b)    the pricing submitted by Try Recycling Inc. through a negotiated sole source agreement in accordance with Section 14.3(c) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy as outlined below BE APPROVED:

i)    provide Operations and Management Services and Continued use of the North End EnviroDepot located at Try Recycling, 21462 Clarke Rd. for a term of three (3) years with two (2), one (1) year extension options at the sole discretion of the City starting January 1, 2025 at an estimated cost for the first year of the term of approximately $182,000; it being noted that the agreement contains a combination of fixed rate and unit rate prices and an inflation rate escalation provision for 2026 and beyond; and,

ii)    a one-time estimated cost of approximately $38,000 to alter the North End EnviroDepot at 21462 Clarke Road to address site limitations and enhance safety features because of the anticipated customer visit growth over the term of the agreement;

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

d)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, contract record and/or purchase order, whichever is determined appropriate; and

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2025-E07/F18)

Motion Passed

2.6   Parks and Recreation Master Plan Annual Report

2025-02-18 SR Parks and Recreation Master Plan Annual Report

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Trosow

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Managers of Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services and Environment and Infrastructure, the staff report dated February 18, 2025, with respect to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Annual Report, BE RECEIVED. (2025-R04)

Motion Passed

2.7   London Fire Department Single Source Request for a Technical Rescue Vehicle (SS-2025-027)

2025-02-18 SR London Fire Dept SS Request for a Technical Rescue Vehicle - Part 1

2025-02-18 SR London Fire Dept SS Request for a Technical Rescue Vehicle - Part 2

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Trosow

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated February 18, 2025, related to the London Fire Department Single Source Request for a Technical Rescue Vehicle (SS-2025-027):

a)    in accordance with Section 14.4(g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Fire Administration BE AUTHORIZED to enter into negotiations with City View Specialty Vehicles Inc. for a single source, one-time purchase of one (1) Technical Rescue vehicle;

b)    the approval in a) above, BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London negotiating satisfactory prices, terms, conditions, and entering into a purchasing agreement with City View Specialty Vehicles Inc., 5945 Ambler Drive, Mississauga, ON, L4W 2K2, to provide one (1) Technical Rescue vehicle to the London Fire Department;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with the authorization set out in parts a) and b) above;

d)    the funding for this procurement BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report; and,

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, as required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2025-F17/V01)

Motion Passed

2.8   Integrated Employment Services - Single Source Procurements

2025-02-18 SR Integrated Employment Services - Single Source Procurements

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Trosow

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated February 18, 2025, related to Integrated Employment Services Single Source Procurements:

a)    single source procurements (SS-2025-028) in accordance with sections 14.4 d) and e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy BE APPROVED at a total estimated cost of $28,795,000 (excluding HST) for the period of April 1, 2025, to March 31, 2026, with the opportunity to extend for nine (9) additional months, to deliver Integrated Employment Services in the London Area Catchment, to the following providers:

  •    ATN Access for Persons with Disabilities Inc.

  •    Quad County Support Services

  •    Southwest Centre for Community Programme Development

  •    Canadian Hearing Services - Services Canadiens de L’Ouie

  •    College Boreal D’Arts Appliques et de Technologie

  •    Community Living Tillsonburg

  •    Elgin – St Thomas Youth Employment Counselling Centre

  •    6323464 Canada Inc O/A Employment Solutions 

  •    Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology

  •    Goodwill Industries Ontario Great Lakes Career Centre

  •    Hutton House Association for Adults with Disabilities

  •    LEADS Employment Services London Inc.

  •    London Training Centre Inc.

  •    March of Dimes Canada

  •    Mennonite Community Services of Southern Ontario

  •    Pathways Employment Help Centre

  •    Tillsonburg & District Multi-Service Centre

  •    Women’s Employment Resource Centre of Oxford County

  •    WIL Counselling and Training for Employment

  •    Youth Opportunities Unlimited;

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

c)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into Agreements with each provider. (2025-S04/F17)

Motion Passed

2.9   Business Licensing By-law Schedule 16 – Refreshment Vehicles - Review and Proposed Amendments

2025-02-18 SR Business Licensing By-law - Refreshment Vehicles

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Trosow

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated February 18, 2025, related to the Business Licensing By-law, Schedule 16 Refreshment Vehicles Review and Proposed Amendments:

a)    the proposed by-law amendments, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 4, 2025, to amend By-law No. L.-131-16, being “A by-law to provide for the Licensing and Regulation of Various Businesses” amending sections of Parts 1, 3, 6, 7, and 10 of the by-law, and to replace Schedule 16 – Refreshment Vehicles;

b)    the proposed by-law amendments, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 4, 2025, to amend By-law No. A-54, being “A by-law to implement an Administrative Monetary Penalty System in London” to amend penalty categories and their amounts to align with the proposed amendment to Schedule 16;

c)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 4, 2025, to amend By-law No. A-59, being “A by-law to provide for Various Fees and Charges” to align the new fees with the proposed new Schedule. (2025-C01)

Motion Passed

2.10   Amendment to Fees and Charges By-Law - Honk Mobile

2025-02-18 SR Amendment to Fees and Charges By-law - Honk Mobile

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated February 18, 2025, related to an Amendment to the Fees and Charges By-law for Honk Mobile:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 4, 2025, to amend the Various Fees and Charges By-law to include a transaction fee of $0.35 for the City-approved mobile parking fee vendor, Honk Mobile Inc., and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a by-law to the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 4, 2025 to delegate to the Director, Municipal Compliance, the authority to approve amending agreements with Honk Mobile Inc. for changes to Program Fees. (2025-C01)

Motion Passed (2 to 1)

2.11   Adult Entertainment Body-Rub Attendant Licensing - Information Report

2025-02-18 SR Adult Entertainment Body-Rub Attendant Licensing

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated February 18, 2025, related to an Adult Entertainment Body-Rub Attendant Licensing Information Report:

a)        the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b)        a Public Participation Meeting BE HELD at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee to present potential amendments to the Business Licensing By-law to license Body-Rub Attendants; and,

c)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consult with stakeholders with respect to this matter and report the findings at the Community and Protective Services Committee meeting coinciding with the future public participation meeting. (2025-C01A)

Motion Passed

Additional Votes:

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by H. McAlister

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

c)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consult with stakeholders with respect to this matter and report the findings at the Community and Protective Services Committee meeting coinciding with the future public participation meeting

Motion Passed (3 to 0)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Trosow

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

b) a Public Participation Meeting BE HELD at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee to present potential amendments to the Business Licensing By-law to license Body-Rub Attendants.

Motion Passed (3 to 0)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the motion be approved, as amended.

Motion Passed (3 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   3rd Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee

2025-02-05 ESACAC Report - FULL

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on February 5, 2025:

a)    the attached Mobility Master Plan Working Group comments BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration;

b)    the attached Climate Emergency Action Plan Working Group comments BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration; and,

c)    clauses 1.1, 2.1, 2.2 and 3.1 BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from Human Environments Analysis Lab youth Advisory Council at Western University, and the verbal delegation from B. Samuels, with respect to this matter, were received.

Motion Passed (3 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the Community and Protective Services Committee convene In Closed Session for the purpose of considering the following:

6.1    Litigation/Potential Litigation / Solicitor-Client Privilege

A matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose and directions and instructions to officers and employees or agents of the municipality.

Motion Passed (3 to 0)

The Community and Protective Services Committee convened In Closed Session from 2:09 PM to 2:25 PM.

7.   Adjournment

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 2:27 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 (1 hour, 28 minutes)

All right, everybody, I will be calling this meeting to order. So welcome to the fourth meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee. I’d like to welcome everybody in chambers and online. The City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishnabek, Haudenosaunee, Lenapei Walk, and Adawandran.

We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The City of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit today. 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 committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communications supports for meetings upon request.

To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact cpsc@london.ca or dial 519-661-2489 extension 2425. I’d like to recognize members of the committee. I have Councillor McAllister to my right. Councillor Trussell online and myself, and I would just let the members know that if anybody needs to leave, we would lose quorum and this meeting will end.

I’d also like to recognize visiting members. I have Corinne or, sorry, Councillor ramen to my right, Councillor Cudi to my right, and the Deputy Mayor Lewis to my right as well, and I believe Councillor Hillier is online and Councillor Pelosa is also online. So welcome. All right.

I will look for any disclosures of interest. None. Okay. That moves us to consent.

I have two pull requests. That’s items 2.10, the amendment to fees and charges by-law for the honk mobile and 2.11, adult entertainment, body rub, attendant licensing information report. So I’d be looking to a committee for any other items to be pulled. I see none.

Okay, looking for a mover for a mover and a seconder for items 2.1 through to 2.9. Moved by Councillor McAllister, seconded by Councillor Trussell. Before we go to any kind of comments or questions on the report, I would like to go to Mr. Yeoman.

He would like to speak to 2.2 urban forest health status of pests and pathogens. I will go to you now, Mr. Yeoman. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. I appreciate the opportunity, just to speak briefly, we have a fairly comprehensive report that we’ve put forward. It’s not the happiest report, unfortunately, about some challenges and threats we’re facing with our urban forest. In particular, we’re looking at three very particular threats.

The first is beach leaf disease, which impacts beach trees, which are our major component of a lot of our woodlands. We think it’s a small worm that’s actually affecting them. It really restricts the flow of nutrients throughout the tree, really causing a lot of challenges. Of course, we’ll be removing a lot of street trees associated with that.

Beach aren’t a huge number of street trees, but it will be a bit of a component. The next is oak wilt, which is not currently present in the city, but we think it is just a matter of time and sort of triangulated around London. This is a fungus that really impacts red oaks in particular, and it’s pretty catastrophic. It really sort of has a couple-year decline window once it actually is in place.

And the last is the Asian long-horned beetle, which has been documented in Toronto. We haven’t seen any yet here in the city, but we are working with the Canada Food Inspection Agency quite a bit. It really does target maples. It feeds on them.

A large portion of the city’s urban forest is maple trees, and that would be really challenging and problematic for our city. So in terms of what we’re doing, of course, have a lot of ecological, financial, and social risks that I think everyone can appreciate. With this report, we’re kicking off some public education that we’ll be doing, really looking to have as many people involved as possible, keeping an eye on their backyard trees and trees that are in public spaces as well. We’re doing a fair bit of industry education as well, working with our partners because they’re often our first line of defense as well, too.

So with the act of monitoring, if anyone does see any concerns, they’re welcome to email us at trees@london.ca, and we’ll get out and do an inspection. We have money in our existing budgets to respond to beach leaf disease from what we know so far. The other threats, though, are our financial risks, and we’ll be talking more about those in budget monitoring if we hear of anything more as it comes forward. The last thing, too, is we’ll be looking for senior government funding if we do actually have any sort of outbreaks, and we’ll be looking to our industry partners to help manage.

So thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. yeoman.

All right. Looking to committee for items 2.1 to 2.9 for any questions or comments. Councillor McAllister. Thank you, and through the Chair, while we’re on it, 2.2.

Thank you for the update. Mr. yeoman, we’re just curious in terms of getting this information out to the public. We’ll be utilizing the city’s social media, like, how will we get this information out to the public, because I’m sure it’ll be nice to get more eyes on it, and obviously, if we can have some kind of reporting structure, so if the public see it, they can report into your team.

Thank you, Councillor. Mr. yeoman. Thank you, through you, Mr.

Chair. We’ve definitely been doing quite a heavy social media blitz coming forward. We’ll also be trying to leverage any engagement opportunities that we have as well with our existing staff resources, trying to get out to the public with information, images, and things like that about things that they can look at as well, trying to also have some things like stickers and tattoos that people can take that will sort of identify things as well to sort of keep a top of mind as we go forward. Thank you, Councillor.

Thank you. Moving on to a different item. This is 2.6. And I’m just wondering, with the new staff complement that was approved, will that make any changes to the master plan, or how does that being worked in?

Thank you, Mr. yeoman. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So, it won’t necessarily affect the master plan directly. However, we have operationalized the budget allocation that Council’s provided. We’ve got two staff that are being hired up right now. We’re working on a job description for the other staff as well, and we’ll have Gibbons online in March as well too, which will be great news for the community.

Councillor. Thank you. Just jumping around here a bit, because we’ve got a bunch of the consent ones in here. And then the other one in terms of the consultant engineering for the Damien’s Sports Park, I’m just wondering, obviously, with the 700,000 that’s being asked, is this the only consultant request that we can anticipate, or would there potentially be another one?

Thank you, Mr. yeoman. Thank you, Mr. Chair, so the consultant award that’s before you is for both the public engagement and design, but also construction administration for when we actually get there as well.

So, we actually will have a tender once the work’s been identified after the community consultations and the design is finalized. That should probably be at a value that will be administratively awarded, but it’ll be a very substantive project and a great addition to the southwest of the city in particular. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, and through the Chair, and sorry, following along with that, in terms of the public engagement that will take place, what exactly are we looking for for the public?

Or is this kind of, we’ve predetermined the facilities that we’re looking for, or is it more an open forum in terms of input from the public as to what we’re looking for? Thank you, Mr. yeoman. Thank you, so through you, Mr.

Chair, so there will be some design alternatives and possibilities that will be discussed with the community. We will be doing some blue sky discussions as well as we engage with user groups and things like that, in particular though, the Parks and McMaster Plan does have a very aggressive target for sports fields for things like soccer, which we anticipate being a heavy portion of this site. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you.

Appreciate all the answers. I have no more questions. Thank you, Councillor, looking to other members of committee? Visiting members.

Councillor Palosa. Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It was just a follow-up, in regards to the 2.6 being the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Annual Report, just I had spoke to you ahead of time, as per page 49, connecting people in nature, just the staff’s report notes, coordinating improvements to the Spring Bank Park Arboretum and partnership with the Murray Hunter Foundation, just making sure that staff could correct it, that it’s the Julia Hunter Foundation, Murray is the father and absolutely the one we’ve been meeting with, but just a typo, I’m sure, just making sure that we respect the donors and that could be corrected. Thank you, Councillor. I did speak with the clerk on that one, and I do see that staff is nodding their heads, so I’ll just look to you if you want to make a comment, or you can take that feedback. Okay, good.

All right, Councillor. You can go ahead, Councillor Palosa, if you have anything else. Thank you. My other one was just in the regards to the same report, looking to see if staff could just, I know the answer that if they could just clarify it within the report for the public, it said that we installed live streaming services in our arenas.

We absolutely did. We used live barn, just if that is clarified in the public report for residents, know that it’s not just people logging on to watch small children learning to skate, that it actually is a paid service, and we know who’s watching them while they’re playing hockey. Thank you, Councillor. I’m getting nods here from staff as well.

All right. I still see you have your hand up, Councillor. I just wanted to go back in case, okay, you’re done. Okay.

Thank you, and through you, my question pertains to the 2024 administrative amendments to the traffic and parking bylaw. So this item is introduced today for discussion, and in it, there’s a number of consent pieces that are delegated authority that staff have put in place. And I want to say thank you for the consideration given around some of these, in my word, at least, highly discussed areas. One of the challenges I’m hearing from residents is ongoing concerns around St.

Andre Bassett, Catholic Elementary School, secondary school, sorry. And with specifically around parking on the side streets associated with the school, residents are not understanding why they would need to go through the process of asking for parking to be removed in the area when the issue is really constrained to when students are in school and that blocking of both sides of the road at that time. So when this report came up and it addresses some of those concerns on streets like Foxridge, it has been quite a discussion this morning with my constituents. So just wondering if you might be able to comment on that process, how we arrive at which streets and how much of that intersection to be able to impact, and when it gets the point where we have to get a petition started in order to remove parking.

Thank you, Councillor. Mr. McCrae. Thank you, through the chair.

Parking on residential streets is largely driven by neighborhood and community input. And so that’ll prompt staff to review conditions. Certainly, if there’s an operational or safety concern, change rules will be made by staff. But otherwise, it’s really left to the preference of the property owners along the street.

And so that is the protest whereby a ballot is sent out and a majority consensus can dictate the parking arrangement on the street and staff are happy to initiate that if we get a sense that there’s a desire amongst the community. Thank you. Councillor. Yeah, thanks.

I think the real concern for residents right now in the areas around bringing snowplows in. And so their concern is when it hinders operational movement for the city of London, why wouldn’t the city come in and do that in place of residents having to come in and say, hey, this is difficult to get a plow down the street, we can only get one car down because of the tight constraints of the road plus the cars parked along the side and mostly their student cars that are parked there. So I hear you and I just want to be forthcoming that this is an ongoing concern and residents are trying to find a way around. And so literally and figuratively in this discussion.

So I do think that there might be more opportunity for us to look at this, but appreciate the report that’s in front of us, the opportunity to discuss that today at your committee. Thank you, Councillor. Any other members of the committee or visiting members for any comments or questions? You see none?

Okay. Let’s call the question. Yes. Closing the vote.

The motion carries three to zero. Okay. That leads us to the next area of the report that scheduled items. I have one.

I have a delegation request and this is for the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee. The third report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Advisory Committee. So I have the delegate ready. So I would just, actually, a second.

So we’re going to give five minutes to the delegation and just state your name and then I’ll let you know when you’re ready to go. Good afternoon. My name is Brendan Samuels. I’m the Chair of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee.

Always good to be back here at community and protective services. If I just… Just a second. Yeah.

I just want to give you your time when you’re ready to go. So we got your name. You have five minutes starting now. Ready to go.

I’m going to use my full five minutes today. Apologies if I sound a little strange. I had a dentist appointment this morning. My mouth is still a little frozen, but we’re going to work through it.

All right. What you’ll see on your agenda is the report from our advisory committee meeting from February. I just want to walk you through a few of the items that are contained within there and orient you also to the added agenda attachments. There was an error in attaching some of our reports.

So those made it into the added agenda. First in our report, you’ll see that we held an information session about green development standards. We had invited leading experts on green development standards, recognizing that that is something that the city is taking a look at this year. And you’ll see the presentation materials included with the report.

They include representation from the Clean Air Partnership, from Doug Terry Holmes and at Zero Home Builder, from the London Society of Architects, and the training coordinator from a local carbon tree union focusing on mass timber. We had a really good discussion. There’s Troso and Frank attended as well as many city staff. I learned a fair bit about what goes into green development standards.

And we have requested that a video recording of that session at our meeting be made available by request through the clerk’s office so it can be used for future reference. We also received a presentation from a local interest group called Seniors for Climate Action Now, interested in how they can work with the city to help climate information reach elderly people in our community. And what you’ll see, and these are the largest attachments on our reports, are reports on the Mobility Master Plan and on the Climate Emergency Action Plan. On the Mobility Master Plan, we received requests for feedback from city staff as well as members of council.

And what you’ll see included in our report is really responding to those requests for information. We tried to center our feedback around our committee’s mandate, which concerns the Climate Emergency Action Plan. Overall, we recommend that the Mobility Master Plan proceeds on schedule. We’re not seeking to delay this or create any impediments to meeting our timelines for the DC study.

However, we are concerned with the lack of clarity in terms of how the plan aligns with London’s greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. And we have requested certain details be included in the next report on the MMP to come back to council. Our report identifies what we perceive to be some knowledge gaps surrounding this MMP, recognizing that this is a major planning study that will be lasting for many decades. And we’re not exactly sure how the plan is being developed.

From the draft maps that we’ve reviewed, we’re not confident that those maps are going to align with the vision. And frankly, we don’t really understand how to interpret the vision statement. It’s a lot of aspirational language, and it doesn’t commit the city to specific metrics. We had similar concerns about the mode share target.

Overall, what we are aiming to do is share feedback from the community. We went out and consulted. We attended a number of the information sessions. I was actually really pleased by the attendance and the work by city staff at those Mobility Master Plan outreach sessions.

And so we’re not seeking to undermine any of that work. We just want to have greater clarity as this plan moves forward, particularly around the climate implications. And also recognizing that 2050 is a long ways away, and there’s going to be other opportunities to adjust and change course as needed, as resources move around. So just having some clarity around what future councils might be able to change in this Mobility Plan.

Ultimately, what we want to see is less people driving cars. And we think that it’s very important that as we are shifting mobility in terms of capital planning projects, we also need to communicate about mobility in a good way. What is it going to take for Londoners to see themselves in the MMP to understand why this matters? And so we’d love to see more resources put into the communication side of that mode shift.

Finally, what you will see in the end of our report is our Climate Emergency Action Plan Report. This is related to the climate emergency adaptation work that is ongoing. We’ve also provided some recommendations for city staff as to how we can communicate with the public about climate related information. If you have any questions about the contents of that report, I’d be happy to take those.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Samuels. You had 38 seconds to go.

Okay. So I will be looking to Committee to move the report. Councillor Trussell. Sorry, I didn’t see you there.

Okay. I need a seconder. Councillor McAllister. Any questions or comments?

Councillor Trussell. Was going to say, it was going to go into more detail, I guess, the clerk can put it in the proper language. We’ve received this delegation. We’re going to forward it to, do we need to say exactly who we’re forwarding it to or just to the team?

And I also want to acknowledge receipt from a letter, one of the same agenda item from the youth advisory group, and I would just like to see all those points acknowledged in the motion. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councillor.

Just conferred with the clerk. The motion includes those two items already, and it does include receiving the report. I can go to the clerk if you want more clarification, but from what I’m seeing, your request should be in there, Councillor. Sorry, Councillor.

But I’ll take the clerk’s word at it, and it’s all in there, it’s pretty routine. Thank you, Councillor. All right. Looking to other members of committee.

Okay. Visiting members. Call the question. Also votes yes.

Closing the vote. The motion carries three to zero. Moving on to item 210 for items for direction, run items for direction now. There was just a second.

So there’s a revised motion for 210, just in addition. It was circulated to members of committee, so I would be looking to members of committee to move that motion with the revised section, and looking for a seconder as well. By Councillor McAllister. Seconder.

I’ll second that. Let’s go to members of committee. Mr. Chair, point out, could you just read out the revised motion since only members of committee saw it?

I can. Thank you, sir. I’ll read that for you. So that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager housing and community growth, following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated February 18, 2025 related to an amendment to the fees and charges by-law for honk mobile.

A, that the proposed by-law is appended to the above noted staff report, B, introduced at the municipal council meeting to be held on March 4, 2025 to amend the various fees and charges by-law to include a transaction fee of 35 cents for the city-approved mobile parking fee vendor honk mobile, and, and this is the revised part, part B, civic administration be directed to bring forward a by-law to the municipal council meeting to be held on March 4, 2025 to delegate to the director, municipal compliance, the authority to approve amending agreements with honk mobile and for changes to program fees. Okay. Are you okay with that, Councillor? Looking to committee members first, Councillor Troso first, Councillor, go ahead.

Thank you and through the chair, and I want to raise a couple of questions about this, and I did speak to the author, what I’d really like to know is why, why such a large increase? I mean, when you say what’s a dime, it’s just a dime, it doesn’t sound like a lot, but when you’re going from 25 to 35, in terms of percentages, that’s a lot more. So my first concern is that this is a large increase to absorb all at once, and I’d like to know what the justification is for the, for the increase. It really was not stated in the staff report, and I did discuss this with staff, and I’m still not satisfied that we’ve received an adequate explanation for why we’re getting such a really relatively large increase.

So I’ll stop there for now and get a response to that before I continue. Thank you, Councillor. I can go to Mr. Catolek.

Thank you. And through the chair, just by way of background, back in 2016, municipal council entered into an agreement with Honk Mobile Inc to provide a technological solution to allow for an app to pay for parking, both on-street parking and also in our municipal parking lots. Honk has been very successful in working with the municipality, and they are now working with a number of different municipalities across Ontario and also educational institutions. So the 35 cents transaction fee does not impact the municipality because it is actually a fee that is charged to the user of the app, and I’ll just provide a list of other municipalities and educational institutions that also have contracts with Honk Mobile Inc and are charging the 35 cent fee, Western University, Fanshawe College, Kitchener, Wealth, Oakville, Toronto, Brampton, Conestoga College, Brock University, Niagara Falls, Welland, Whitby, Wasaga Beach, Colberg, Kingston, and Ganon-Aquay.

Honk Mobile Inc is not the only type of app that provides this type of parking service. There are other competitors in the field. For example, pay by phone is another app that provides the same type of service. Their transaction fee is 50 cents.

Passport is another app. Their transaction fee is 35 cents. Park Mobile, $2 per transaction. The 25 cent fee has not been increased since 2016, and we are confident that with this increase, Honk will continue to provide citizens of London and our staff exceptional service in terms of providing parking services.

Thank you, Mr. Katoleg. Councillor. Yeah, and all due respect, that didn’t really answer my question, which is what’s the justification for such a large percentage increase at this time?

Thank you, Councillor. I’ll go to staff for the justification. Thank you for the question and through the chair. The justification is that inflation and technological improvements allow Honk Mobile Inc to put codes into the app to provide for reduced parking at a moment’s notice.

So they provide exceptional service, and we did not do this in isolation without looking at other municipalities and educational institutions that Honk provides services for. Gone are the days that people carry around tunies and quarters and lunies in their pockets to pay for parking. Thank you, Mr. Katoleg.

Councillor. Through the chair. I don’t think we’re at the point yet where everybody. I think the assumption here through the chair is that everybody has the data, and I do think and I’ve raised this before with respect to this exact application.

I do believe that there are certain equity considerations, and quite frankly, I think it’s a stretch to say go on as the day where people don’t carry change, but I’m not going to debate that with staff right now. My next question to the chair is, is there any room for negotiation here and maybe phasing it in, and what would happen if we didn’t just accept this outright? Thank you, Councillor, going to staff. Any room for negotiation or if we didn’t accept the increase?

Through the chair, this 10th cent increase is in line with other municipalities and in line with other educational institutions. We did not enter into high level negotiations with this very successful mobile app provider. Obviously, if they came in with a higher increase than other municipalities, definitely we would negotiate, but I know I’m repeating myself, 35 cents is very reasonable. Keep Mr.

Katoleg. Councillor. Yeah, I think I’ll just leave it at that. I’m not going to be supporting this increase right now, and I just don’t see the point of asking further questions, so I’ll just leave it there.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. I have probably wrote a deputy mayor, just one more call for visiting members, or sorry, members of the committee. Okay.

Deputy Mayor, you’re next. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and through you, I want to thank staff for bringing this forward. After nine years, it’s not reasonable to expect that the rate is going to remain the same.

I’m going to say I disagree very strongly with Councillor Trussau that this is a large increase while it may be percentage-wise. It is not in the raw numbers. It is bringing the price in line and still at the bottom end, frankly, of the offerings from other service providers and what’s happening in other municipalities. I will also say, and I say this respectfully, but I reject the premise that somebody who is able to pay for fuel, maintenance, car insurance, and is paying for parking, isn’t going to have data to be able to pay for their honk mobile.

I just don’t think that that’s an equity lens that’s being accurately applied here, given the cost that’s quoted frequently and including around submissions on the MMP, around what it costs to operate in motor vehicle. I don’t think 10 cents is at all unreasonable, and I appreciate staff bringing this forward and getting this done so that we can continue, because I will say honk has been a very productive partner with us, and certainly we saw particularly during the pandemic, and after the pandemic, their willingness to partner on codes like the core code so that we could see some downtown economic recovery, but that’s the kind of technological advancement that we didn’t have at the beginning that is going to drive a requirement in the user fees going up slightly. And so I’m very supportive of this, and hopefully we’ll see this get through council quickly, and we can get those amendments in place with the agreement, and continue to provide this service for Londoners. Although I will say chair, I will agree with councilor Trussow, I still keep a couple dollars in change in my console, in my car, and once in a while, those coins in the meter are actually a better option than honk, especially if I’m going to be a very short period of time.

So I don’t think the coin is completely gone, and if anybody wants to come down to the council’s parking garage after the meeting and count how many coins are in my console, there will see that it is not zero. Thank you. I have councilor Palosa. Next.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know Deputy Mayor Lewis and I had just had recently a conversation about how much we both use honk with or without a core parking code. A question through you to Mr.

Catolic or the appropriate staff. Should council decline the request of 25 cents to 35 cents increase? What could potentially happen with the honk app as it is the only app we are currently using across the city? Thank you, Councillor.

That question is similar to the last one, but it’s posed a little bit differently, so I will go to Mr. Catolic for what could come next if we declined? Through the chair, that would have to be something that we would discuss with honk based on council’s decision. Thank you, Councillor.

Thank you. I just wanted to highlight that this is the app that we’ve rolled out that I would say has been very successful and a good partner with the city, and just concerned if there’s a delay or a decline of what it might mean for actually servicing the Londoners and their parking needs. Thank you. Thank you.

Looking to both members of committee and visiting members, anybody who would like to speak again or has not spoke? I have not. Okay. Let’s call the question.

Let’s go to the vote to know. Opposing the vote, the motion carries two to one. Next item is 211, adult entertainment, body rub, attending, licensing, information report. So I would need a member of the committee to move and second an item, or I believe that there is possibly an amendment, so just looking for members of committee for the recommendation from the report to anybody to move or second.

Okay. That’s moved by Councillor McAllister. Looking for a seconder. Okay.

I’ll second that. Looking to members of committee. I think I’ll just start by putting my motion to refer this back to staff on the floor and see if that gets a second, or should I debate this first and then we’ll come to that. If you could, Councillor, just give us your reasoning for the referral.

The reasoning for the referral is it’s come to my attention that the actual stakeholders here in terms of the agencies that are serving women in this area. We’re not consulted about this, and you do have two letters in the file that just came in this morning. One from Jennifer Dunn and also one from Jesse Rogers. Those were sent to the CPSC email, not in time for the added, but then again, the added anyway, I guess my question is why were these groups, particularly these two groups, not consulted about this in advance as they claim in their letter?

Thank you, Councillor. I would need a seconder before we can move forward. I just wanted you to state your reasoning for your amendment. If I’m just going to look to committee for a seconder, a potential seconder, let’s call.

All right, Councillor, we don’t have a seconder for your report, but you can speak to the main motion. I understand the chair. I’m not getting a second for the deferring this back to civic administration. Is that correct?

You’re not getting a seconder further referral. That’s correct. Okay. And has the, may I ask the clerk, well, this came in in the last hour, but have people had the opportunity to read the chair, the communications from Jennifer Dunn and Jesse Rogers?

I wouldn’t be able to speak to that, Councillor. Okay. Well, I’m going to be voting no on the staff recommendation because I do believe that given the interest in this issue, and given the fact that these two agencies, LAWC and ANOVA, are well known to the city as having an interest in this matter, I’m having a difficult time understanding why they were not consulted before this went on to the agenda, and maybe staff can answer that. Go to staff, Mr.

Coler. Thank you for the question and through the chair. By way of background, civic administration is always in a continuous improvement mode with respect to reviewing Council’s bylaws. Back in 2017, we did a very similar review of this category within our business licensing bylaw, and we consulted widely throughout the municipality in terms of all the community agencies that have an interest in this category.

We consulted with owners, attendance of these premises, and we had several public participation meetings. This report before you today is the initial report that indicates that should Council give direction, we will consult with these agencies, we will consult with our partners, we will consult with other municipalities that for numerous, numerous years have a business licensing category looking at attendance of body row parlors. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Coler. Councillor. Through the chair, then, I just want to read a little bit of Jesse Rogers’ letter since there’s a question as to whether people have seen it. She says at the end, and I won’t read the whole thing, but what is proposed so far is not in alignment with the city’s strategic plan and puts the onus and responsibility on women, gender diverse, and trans people, rather than the operators of licensed body row parlors.

She’s asking for the committee to send this back to staff as per my deferral motion request, which did not get a second. The other one is very similar. At this point, I think it’s premature to go to a public participation meeting on this. The way the motion is drafted, and I really want to ask the other members of this committee to not vote in favor of it, because if Council approves the motion as it’s drafted, then it would be a decided matter of Council, which would, in essence, create a situation where the public participation meeting would be limited to what’s on the face of this motion.

I agree that we should have a public participation meeting at some point, but it should give people the opportunity to talk about number one, other options, and number two, talk about the possibility of eliminating this as a licensing category. So I think there are two major flaws with the motion on the floor. Number one, I think it really should have been circulated last week to the interested stakeholders. I’m really disappointed that that did not happen.

I think that’s a flaw. And number two, the way it’s drafted, I think, would push us into a procedural corner that we might want to avoid, because there might be other options besides what’s in this particular bylaw. So I would urge people to vote against this. And I’m really disappointed that we’re not sending this back to staff for further consideration.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor. I’m going to pass the chair over to my second chair to Councilman Councillor, recognizing me. Okay.

Recognizing I have the chair. Go ahead, Councillor Ferri. Thank you, Councillor. I’m hearing what Councillor Trussell is saying, and I wasn’t in support of a referral just because I don’t want staff to have to do a whole bunch of work again.

But I do hear what Councillor Trussell is saying with respect to some of the stakeholders specifically in NOVA. So I’d like to move a motion that is not a referral, but is to have civic administration be directed to consult with the stakeholders with respect to this matter and report the findings at the CPSC meeting coinciding with the future public participation meeting. So it would be a direction for staff to consult with those stakeholders before we bring that item back for the public participation meeting. Okay.

Point of order. I’m looking for a seconder. Sorry. I’m sorry.

You had a point of order. I have to deal with that first. Go ahead, Councillor Trussell. I think the motion is fundamentally flawed because if we wait for the consultation, if that happens when this is coming back for the in conjunction with the public participation meeting, then the public participation notice is going to go out based on the narrower framework.

And I think it would be important when we do have a public participation meeting. So we only have to have it once that it have all the possible options on the table. So that’s why I’d rather see this broken up. And that’s why I don’t think the way this was just framed is valid.

Okay. Well, I’m going to rule it in order. You can challenge that if you want, but I’ll allow Councillor Ferris before. Thank you.

I don’t have a seconder, but I do see Councillor Palazzo with her hand up. I will second it to allow for discussion. So we’ll go to, I have to go to committee members first. We do have the motion on the floor that Councillor Ferris put forward.

So looking for other committee members like to speak to that first, I’d like to speak to it, but I’m chairing it. I’ll just speak if that’s okay from the chair. I appreciate Councillor Ferris put forward. I do think consultation is required, but I’d also like to know that with the public participation meeting, I don’t think that it precludes any of these agencies from coming forward and making their positions known.

This allows through the public participation meeting for members of the public, for the agencies, everyone has an opportunity to speak to this. It also, I don’t think does set us on that course. I think that there is still time if, through the course of this discussion, we want to change direction. We of course can.

We also have the ability to quash whatever comes out of this. So if Council decides as a whole that it doesn’t like the direction things are going, we do also have the ability to stop it there. I’ll leave my thoughts on that there. I’m looking to see if there are other Council committee members.

I see Councillor Ferris would like to go next, and I do note that Councillor Palazzo is also on the list, but just going to committee members and the Deputy Mayor as well. Go ahead, Councillor Ferris. Thank you, Councillor. Exactly what you said.

We’re just getting, ensuring that we have all stakeholders input involved, and when the next cycle comes, you know, we can decide how to move forward from there. So I do believe that this is a middle ground from what Councillor Truss was originally moving, and from what was requested from what the staff recommendation is. So I do appreciate Councillor McAllister seconding the motion, and I hope that we can get support on committee, and once the next cycle comes in, we can’t have the option to negotiate and deliberate that, and then I’m basically looking for all the information before we make that decision. So that’s why I moved the motion.

Thank you, Councillor. Okay, now you’ve used one minute of your time, Councillor Ferris. I’m not okay, Councillor Truss, so you are a member of the committee, you can go next if you’d like. I really want to hear what Councillor Palazzo and Lewis have to say, because, so may I defer for a few minutes?

Yeah, absolutely. I can go to Councillor Palazzo first. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr.

Presenting Officer. As to Councillor Truss, my concern is, as the past chair of CAHPS, that fundamentally flawed that if you would like to know what staff learns, and what the agencies would like to contribute, if you tie it at the same time as a public participation meeting, it all comes at once, and perhaps get the staff report after you’ve done the public participation meeting, and then if you change something procedurally, you need to go back and host another public participation meeting, realizing sometimes these topics are very traumatic for people coming forward to speak to us and speak with us. Those are my main concerns about procedurally, how it will fall, and we gain information at the same time we’re trying to hear from the public. Also going to flag that members of the committee did receive the correspondence, not everyone did.

So I will certainly reach out to the agencies or the clerk to make sure that the correspondence that you received can be part of the public agenda for Council, for we can all receive that information and learn from it, which might help inform our decision-making process going forward. A question through you to the appropriate staff with the motion on the floor, the original motion of staff being sent to engage of what, realizing sometimes there is a long leg between Council saying yes, hold a public participation meeting in those meetings actually being held at committee, looking through you to staff to see what their timeline would be of engaging with some of the member partner agencies in the interim prior to a PPM. Looking to staff in terms of the timeline for engagement. Thank you for the question, and through the presiding officer, the earliest we would be back at a public participation meeting is Q3 of this year, and it’s somewhat of a given that when we’re doing larger reviews, such as this one in terms of a category within business licensing, we most definitely consult with the industry and with community groups and bring back an options report together with a draft by-law for public consideration, and then bring back subsequent reports should Council direct us to implement the by-law.

Do you have follow up questions, Councillor Palazzo? No, just that was of use that we understand the options report with the draft by-laws and the timeline of this report. Thank you. I’m sorry, Councillor Ferri, have you hand up?

I do. After the comments from the Council of Palazzo and the options report, do we need to have that in this motion to give you direction for that, or would it suffice of the discussion here with the motion as it is? Okay, looking to staff, go ahead. Through Mr.

Presiding Officer, that’s a given for all by-law reviews we do within business licensing categories. Okay, you’re all good, Councillor Ferri, okay, looking to the Deputy Mayor, go ahead. Thank you. So, I appreciate where colleagues’ concerns lay around this and that you don’t want to be, you know, steered into one path forward only.

I think sometimes though we are our own worst enemies when we’re trying to provide direction on something that staff is going to come back with and sometimes get to the point where through our own desire to see something positive actually restrict the ability of something positive to come back. So I can say when this comes to Council, I’ll support this, but I think actually the original motion would have been fine because of a couple of reasons. First, it does give an amount of time, not just for staff, but actually for us as members of Council to consult with stakeholders as well. We are certainly free to have those conversations with individuals like Ms.

Rogers and Ms. Dunne. I had a communication from the former Director of the London Abuse Women’s Center, Ms. Walker this morning wanting to talk about this and at that point I was only just looking at the report myself, so I think we do have time.

I think the staff can consult, but I worry about when we start doing very specific stakeholder consultations and I’ve seen this repeated in a number of bylaws. Mr. Kotolek will laugh when I say it started in 2018 when I wanted to bring forward a tow truck bylaw regulation, but I’ve seen it on the graphic flyers, I’ve seen it on the rent evictions, we sometimes get over-prescriptive and in fact end up doing two or three or four processes of public participation meetings and if we have the PPM first and get that feedback, we can then either provide directions to amend or we can provide a referral back with some really clear directions out of that public feedback. I think if we get too far ahead of prescribing what should come forward before the PPM, we actually do create that cycle of loop back loop back and so certainly I agree with Councillor plows this point, if we vary too much we go right back to square one, but based on the feedback we hear from the public and stakeholders in the PPM we can actually really sort of fine tune a referral back and so we don’t have to start over because they might be smaller amendments rather than a major course correction, so I understand where all colleagues are on wanting some more information on this, I don’t think that anything we’re doing today is going to put us on railroad tracks where we can’t make a left or a right turn off of and go a different direction, but I do understand the caution about that because it can actually set us back over and over again restarting and I’d rather not do three or four or however many tow truck public participation meetings we had before that one got finalized, we saw it on the renovations, you know multiple delegation requests on consent and then public meeting and then another public meeting, so I think it’s really an opportunity for us to take our time letting staff move ahead with a draft bylaw with some consultation with stakeholders and then are doing some of the work ourselves to do some consultation listening to what the public feedback is and then being really tight on a referral back to any changes we want to see when that draft comes forward or choose not to support it at all and do nothing which is also an option that we could ultimately choose to go, so like I said I’ll support this, I understand where the concerns are, I just don’t want us to be overly prescriptive at this early stage as to what we think the result should be because I think we all need more time to do some consulting and gather some information ourselves.

Okay thank you Deputy Mayor, okay Councillor Trussa go ahead. Yeah I want to, while it’s fresh in everybody’s mind through the chair, I want to really agree with the last point that the Deputy Mayor made and that is we shouldn’t be overly prescriptive about it because if we are this is going to be towards the end of the year of 2025, so we get one shot at doing this, if we decide we want to send this back to another public participation meeting we’re in an election year and that’s going to be honest really soon, so I want to make sure that we keep all of our options open which is why I really would like to either have the options language in there as was stated by Steph, I don’t think that’s prescriptive, but I do think that the specific prescription that the public participation meeting be about this particular version of this by-law needs to come out, otherwise we will find ourselves in Q3 with this dilemma that we always have which is do we have to have another public participation meeting. We can avoid that entire conundrum if we just take that language out or make it explicit that there’ll be options, so I’m not sure exactly at this point through the chair how the motion is written, but if that language about will hold a public participation meeting about the attached by-law, I think that has to come out, thank you. Okay, thank you.

I believe staff had already addressed this but just to confirm that those options would be worked on in the interim between now and public participation meeting and they would be part of an options report I believe is how Mr. Catolic phrased it. Thank you and through the chair the recommendation before you was no different than the recommendation of all the other continuous improvement processes we undertake when we look at a variety of different by-laws, so I respectfully disagree with Councillor Trosto’s that we need prescriptive language to look at options because when we do community consultation there may be options that come up that we’re not even aware of. We’ll learn something during these consultations and therefore we might look at another option.

This is not something new that the City of London is looking at doing that no other municipality in Ontario is doing. I’ve listed in the report other municipalities that have gone down that route, so we do have best practices throughout Ontario and we are always consulting with other municipalities to see how those best practices are working in consultation with implementing your strategic plan. Okay thank you for the response. I’m not okay Councillor Trosto go ahead you have about two minutes left.

Yeah and what you just said was fine could you could the clerk please put the motion as it now stands on the board because I’m hearing some dissonance here in terms of what what is being agreed to on the floor and what’s in the text of the motion as I recall it. Could you put the actual text of the motion we’ll be voting on on the floor on the screen so we can all see it. Okay I believe it’s up on the screen now can you see it? No.

Okay would you like me to read it out? I’d really appreciate it. Does the clerk want to read it out or no? Okay I’m going to pass it over to the clerk to read out go ahead.

The motion that’s on the floor right now is an amendment and it reads that the motion be amended to add a new part C to read as follows. The civic administration be directed to consult with stakeholders with respect to this matter and report the findings at the CAHPS meeting coinciding with the future public participation meeting. Yeah so Part B is still part of the motion. Through the chair that was the original motion we’re dealing with the amendment right now.

So is Part B part of the motion we’re voting on? Okay so right now we’re on C which is an amendment to add another clause so we’d have to vote on this to amend the motion but B is still part of the main motion yes. Okay so I think C improves so I’ll speak to C then C improves the overall lot of things but I think it’s still conflicts with B so when we amend it I am going to ask that B come out or be called separately because I think that that conflicts with C because B talks about a public participation meeting on a very very particular bylaw but I’m okay with C. Okay do we have any other speakers to C which is the amendment?

I’m not seeing any. I’ll open this for voting and then afterwards I’ll pass it back to Councillor Ferris. Councillor Trozzell voting the S on C. Posing the vote the motion carries 3 to 0.

Okay I pass the chair back over to Councillor Ferris. Thank you Councillor. Okay we’re now on the motion as amended. Councillor you just a second.

All right you have two minutes on the main motion remaining so you can go ahead Councillor Trozzell. Yeah so could the clerk please read B? Yes I will have the clerk reads part B for the motion. Part B of the main motion reads a public participation meeting be held at a future meeting of the community and protective services committee to present an amendment to the business licensing bylaw to license body rub attendance.

Yeah so that’s my exact point. In fact I think C is actually contrary to B because C is much broader, B is much more limited, B is exactly the kind of language that we should be avoiding and I think this whole motion would be okay if you strike that last little piece of B but to leave B the way it’s in there and then have C it’s just confusing. Again I don’t want to leave it to a ruling from the chair at the public participation meeting in October or November or September what’s going to happen. So I really think that B needs to be taken out or fixed because you’ve got a conflict here and we need to be looking ahead and trying to avoid procedural crack quag wires ahead of time.

Thank you Councillor. Sorry Councillor I cut you out there go ahead. I look to somebody’s guidance in terms of how we can fix that because I think B is we’re going to have a public participation meeting about a very very particular bylaw and C is what everybody else has been talking about in terms of it being broader and non prescriptive. Thank you Councillor just a second.

Okay Councillor I don’t necessarily see B as contrary to see you however I have asked the clerk to pull B out so you can so we can vote on it separately from the other parts of the motion. Well okay that’s fine but I’d like to amend B then to take out that last sub clause. Okay that’s an amendment to amend B to take out the last sub clause can you be specific on what part you’d like to pull. Green everything after we hold the public participation with respect to an amendment to the bylaw and stop there because everything after that talks about a particular amendment to the bylaw and I think for clarity that should come out.

Point of order. Okay I have a point of order Councillor McAllister state your point. So dissecting this amendment right now I don’t think this is a bit out of order I think from what staff have said and what we’re trying to get to would be not be appropriately amended to just say future meeting of the community and protective services committee to present a potential amendment with an S in brackets just to reflect what staff have said. Thank you so you’re recommending to add the word potential for the point of order.

Yes that’s that’s exactly right that’s what I was trying to say I guess it would be hard to agree with me but that’s basically what I’ve been trying to get at so yeah that’s fine. Okay thank you I would rule that that is not a point of order Councillor but I’m going to take that anyways. Councillor Tracelle if you want to make an amendment to add potential onto part B you can move that amendment. Well I think the way Councillor McAllister just stated it was nice and I don’t want to lose any of that language so could you just repeat what you said I like the potential part.

All right Councillor I’m going to go to Councillor McAllister to repeat once what he can say what he said. Thank you and through the chair no I was just trying to avoid a vote which I think we can find the middle ground on. So the language that I would include is in B at the future meaning of community protective service committee to present potential amendments and then with amendments being in brackets because I don’t know what’s going to come forward and just striking that and there. I just think rather than striking B if we can just amend it slightly I think that gets to where the Councillor is trying to get to.

Thank you Councillor I appreciate the committee work at committee. I’m going to look for a seconder for your amendment. Okay seconded by Councillor Tracelle that is a new speakers list now I would say we did speak to this quite thoroughly already but I will go to committee members first and then visiting members for any type of comments you’d like to make on this amendment. Councillor McAllister first then Councillor Tracelle.

Thank you through the chair no I’m just trying to reflect the sentiments of committee work we’re doing recognizing that staff have already acknowledged that options will be presented this just spells it out a bit more clearly that any sort of PPM would not be as prescriptive and that it offers the potential for options to come forward for that PPM. Thank you Councillor and Councillor Tracelle. Just so we’re clear I agree with everything that was just said and I think it’s really significant that we’re doing this at committee and not at Council and I really appreciate the give and take care and just just for the public that’s trying to follow this if I may all options will be on the table when we have this public participation meeting. So I really want to encourage members of the community to really think about what they see as the future of this bylaw and how they would like to see it go and thank you everybody and I think we have a good motion.

Thank you Councillor. Okay looking for any other comments questions no okay let’s vote on this amendment call on the question posting the vote the motion carries three to zero. Okay so now we have to vote on the motion as amended as I said before we did have a pretty thorough discussion but I am going to go one more round to see if visiting members and or sorry committee members first then visiting members have any comments or questions I see none. Okay let’s call the question posting the vote the motion carries three to zero.

Okay thank you members of committee and visiting members for that discussion that leaves us to that is the end of items for direction I’m on the next section deferred matters additional business I have none that moves us to confidential items there is one six point one litigation potential litigation solicitor client privilege a matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation and advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege but privilege including communications necessary for that purpose and directions and instructions to officers and employers employees or agents of the municipality so I’m looking for a motion to go into camera moved by Councillor McAllister seconded by I’ll second that. Okay calling the vote calling the vote now. Bozing the vote the motion carries three to zero. Okay I’ll give everybody a moment to leave chambers and then we’ll lock everything up and then we will have that one item in discussion for in camera.

Okay we are back in the open session I’m going to go to my vice chair to report out on the closed session. I thank you for pointing out from confidential session I’m just noting that we did go into closed session approximately around 210 I believe and the progress was made on the matter for which we went into confidential session. Thank you. Okay that leaves us to the last item that’s adjournment looking for a mover moved by Councillor McAllister seconded by Councillor Troso hand vote all those in favor.

All those opposed. That motion carries. Thank you Deputy Mayor. We’re adjourned.

Thank you.