March 4, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:03 PM

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED Councillor H. McAlister discloses a pecuniary interest in item 13, clause 3.6 of the 4th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee, having to do with 1378-1398 Commissioners Road West (Z-9815), by indicating that his family member owns property near the development.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

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

4.1 Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose and for the

purpose of giving instructions to officers and employees of the City of London. (6.1/4/ICSC)

4.2 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. (6.1/4/CPSC)

4.3 Security of Property / Education/Training Session

A matter pertaining to the security of the property of the municipality or local board and education and training of Council Members by the Director, Emergency Management and Security Services. (6.1/3/SPPC)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

That Council convenes In Closed Session, from 1:09 PM to 1:25 PM.

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

5.1   3rd Meeting held on February 11, 2025

2025-02-11 Council Minutes

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the Minutes of the 3rd Meeting of the Municipal Council, held on February 11, 2025, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lehman

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

6.2   Parks and Recreation Master Plan Annual Report

  1. Revised Staff Report

6.3   Business Licensing By-law Schedule 16 - Refreshment Vehicles - Review and Proposed Amendment.

  1. Revised Staff Report

6.4   Amendment to Fees and Charges By-law - Honk Mobile

  1. K. Siskind, HONKMobile, Inc

6.5   Adult Entertainment Body-Rub Attendant Licensing - Information Report

  1. J. Dunn, London Abused Women’s Centre

  2. J. Rodger, Anova

  3. (ADDED) Deputy Chief S. Guilford, London Police Service

  4. (ADDED) Councillor S. Stevenson

6.6   (ADDED) 2025 Assessment Growth Funding Allocation

  1. Councillor S. Stevenson

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.1   Integrity Commissioner’s Annual Report

2025-03-04 Submission - Integrity Commissioner

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the submission dated February 26, 2025 from Principle’s Integrity - Integrity Commissioner’s Annual Report BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for consideration and that Principle’s Integrity be requested to attend the meeting.

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Lewis

that the motion be amended to include the cost of services as an Appendix to the agenda for the meeting

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the motion, as amended, be approved

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 6.1, as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the submission dated February 26, 2025 from Principle’s Integrity - Integrity Commissioner’s Annual Report:

a)   the Integrity Commissioner’s Annual Report BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for consideration;

b)   Principle’s Integrity be requested to attend the meeting; and,

c)   the costs of services be included as an Appendix to the agenda.

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   4th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2025-02-19 - PEC REPORT

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 4th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of items 13 (3.6) and 15 (4.1)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   (1.1) Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) 2024 Annual Development Report

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the 2024 Annual Development Report, as appended to the staff report dated February 19, 2025, as Appendix “A”, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) 2024 Annual Heritage Report

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the 2024 Annual Heritage Report BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.3) Seasonal Building Division Report - December 2024 - Year End

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the Seasonal Building Division Report December 2024 – Year End, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.4) LJM Developments (London) Inc. - Application for Brownfield Community Improvement Plan Incentives - 359 Wellington Road

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of LJM Developments (London) Inc. relating to the property located at 359 Wellington Road:

a) a total expenditure of up to a maximum of $2,100,000 in municipal brownfield financial incentives BE APPROVED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 4, 2025, under the following program in the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) for Brownfield Incentives (‘Brownfield CIP’):

i) to provide a grant through the Development Charges Rebate Program for the eligible remediation costs, as follows:

A) that if development charges are paid in one lump sum amount, the Development Charges Rebate grant will be issued in one instalment;

B) that if development charges are paid annually over six years, the Development Charges Rebate grant will be issued in six annual instalments, noting that any interest charged by the City of London for deferred development charge payments is not included in the rebate;

b) the applicant BE REQUIRED to enter into an agreement with the City of London outlining the relevant terms and conditions for the incentives that have been approved by Municipal Council under the Brownfield CIP. The agreement between the City of London and LJM Developments (London) Inc. will be transferable and binding on any subsequent property owner(s);

c) the applicant BE REQUIRED to provide the additional soil and groundwater investigations proposed by the applicant’s consultant as well as the correspondence with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks through submission of the Conceptual Site Model to support the Record of Site Condition;

it being noted that no grants will be provided through the Brownfield CIP until:

i) all remediation work approved under this application is finished; ii) the payment of development charges has begun;

iii) a Record of Site Condition is filed with the Government of Ontario’s Environmental Site Registry;

iv) the City of London receives receipts showing the actual cost of the eligible remediation work; and,

v) the City of London receives the additional information requested in the above-noted clause c).

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.5) Heritage Easement Agreement, 39 Carfrae Street (Relates to Bill No. 80)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Heritage Easement Agreement for 39 Carfrae Street:

a) the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated February 19, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 4, 2025, for the following:

i) the Heritage Easement Agreement as appended to Appendix “A”, Schedule “1” between the Corporation of the City of London and the property owners of 39 Carfrae Street relating to the heritage designated property known as “Carfrae Cottage” BE APPROVED;

ii) the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED delegate authority to execute the Heritage Easement Agreement on the City’s behalf; and,

iii) the release of the existing 2021 easement agreement from title to 39 Carfrae Street upon the registration of the Heritage Easement Agreement as appended to Appendix “A”, Schedule “1” BE AUTHORIZED, to the satisfaction of the Deputy City Manager, Legal Services.

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (2.6) The 3rd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 3rd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on February 12, 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (3.1) 1484 Gore Road (Z-25002) (Relates to Bill No. 95)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Richfield Custom Homes (c/o Stantec Consulting Ltd.), relating to the property located at 1484 Gore Road;

a) the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated February 19, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 4, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-6) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-6( )) Zone;

b) the Site Plan Authority BE REQUESTED to consider limiting western-facing windows to the ground floor only;

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

  • R. Hagath, Stantec;

  • K. Bailey; - T. Mackenzie; and,

  • E. Caleb

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

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

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

  • the recommended amendment would permit residential intensification that is appropriate for the existing and planned context of the site and surrounding neighbourhood;

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

Motion Passed

8.1.9   (3.2) 1390 Dundas Street (Z-9817) (Relates to Bill No. 96)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following action be taken with respect to the application of Southbridge Healthcare LP (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the property located at 1390 Dundas Street, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 19, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 4, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016) to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Regional Facility (RF) Zone TO a Regional Facility Special Provision (RF1(_)) Zone;

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

  • M. Litwinchuk, Zelinka Priarmo Ltd.; and,

  • M. Wallace, London Development Corp.;

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

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

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

  • the recommended amendment would permit complementary uses that are considered appropriate within the surrounding context;

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

Motion Passed

8.1.10   (3.3) 4023-4096 Meadowbrook Drive, 4474-4500 Blakie Road, 169-207 Exeter Road (Z-25001) (Relates to Bill No. 97)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Bluestone Properties Inc. (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the property located at 4023-4096 Meadowbrook Drive, 4474- 4500 Blakie Road, and 169-207 Exeter Road, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 19, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 4, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016) to amend the zoning of the subject property FROM a Light Industrial Special Provision (LI1/LI4(10)/LI7) Zone and a Light Industrial Special Provision (LI1/LI2/LI3/LI4(10)/LI7) Zone TO a Light Industrial Special Provision (LI1/LI2/LI3/LI4(10)/LI7) Zone;

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

  • L. Jamieson, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

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

  • the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Design Policies, Urban Corridor Place Type policies, and the Our Tools policies; and,

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

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

Motion Passed

8.1.11   (3.4) Holding Provision Symbol Review - Property Update (Z-25011) (Relates to Bill No. 98)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the based on the application for the City of London relating to the Holding Provision Symbol Review Property Update the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 19, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 4, 2025, to amend Section 3.8(2) (“Holding Zone Provisions”) of the Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to add the “h-213” holding provision and to adjust the zoning of the subject properties to reflect Section 3.8(2) of the Zoning By-law No. Z-1.

Motion Passed

8.1.12   (3.5) 1782 Kilally Road (OZ-9811) (Relates to Bill No.’s 88 and 99)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Drewlo Holdings Inc. relating to the property located at 1782 Kilally Road:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 19, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 4, 2025, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016:

i) to revise Map 1 – Place Types to amend a portion of the subject property FROM Environmental Review and Neighbourhoods Place Type TO a Green Space and Neighbourhoods Place Type;

ii) to revise Map 5 – Natural Heritage to remove the Unevaluated Vegetation Patches, and Potential Naturalization Area and amend the Environmentally Significant Area; and,

iii) to revise Map 6 – Hazards and Natural Resources to AMEND the limits of the Maximum Hazard Line and the Conversation Authority Regulated Area;

b) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated February 19, 2025, as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on March 4, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 in conformity with The London Plan, as amended in the above noted part a), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR4) Zone and Open Space (OS5) Zone, TO: a Residential R1 (R1-13) Zone; a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7()) Zone; a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4()) Zone; an Open Space (OS1) Zone; and an Open Space (OS5) Zone;

c) the Planning and Environment Committee BE REQUESTED to report issues to the Approval Authority, if any, raised through the application review process for the property located at 1782 Kilally Road; and,

d) the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that the Municipal Council supports issuing draft approval of the proposed plan of residential subdivision, submitted by Drewlo Holdings Inc. (File No. 39T-24506);

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

  • C. O’Brien, Drewlo Holdings;

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

Motion Passed

8.1.14   (4.2) Councillors E. Peloza and A. Hopkins - Motion to update Business Improvement Area by-laws

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review and update the Business Improvement Area By-Laws, including the addition of a mechanism to encourage Business Improvement Areas to submit their annual reports on a more timely basis, and report back to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee.

Motion Passed

8.1.16   (5.1) Deputy Mayor S. Lewis - Motion for immediate need for road rehabilitation of Dundas Street between Burdick Place and Beatrice Street

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to suspend any further considerations of the “Dundas Streetscape Master Plan for the Argyle Core Area” with regard to the immediate need for road rehabilitation in 2025 of Dundas Street between Burdick Place and Beatrice St. due to extremely poor pavement condition (low PQI rating) and proceed with the rehabilitation planned prior to this plan;

it being noted that funding for the Dundas Streetscape Master Plan CIP was not included in the 2024-2027 MYB or annual updates;

it being further noted that reducing costs on capital projects for non-essential elements is consistent with the “Strong Mayor” direction to the Civic Administration to bring forward options for a budget rate of under 5% for 2026;

it being further noted that Planning and Environment Committee Received the following communication with respect to this matter:

  • a communication dated February 13, 2025 from B. Mejia and R. Graham - Argyle BIA.

Motion Passed

8.1.13   (3.6) 1378-1398 Commissioners Road West (Z-9815) (Relates to Bill No. 100)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Tricar Properties Limited (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.), relating to the property located at 1378 - 1398 Commissioners Road West:

a) the proposed by-law appended to the staff report as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 4, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-8) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-3(_)*H25) Zone;

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

i) to screen all parking areas from the public roadway with enhanced all season landscaping, as well as from neighbouring properties to mitigate any noise or light pollution;

ii) to explore opportunities to reduce the amount of paved area on site in favour of more landscaped area; and,

iii) to ensure units fronting the public streets are oriented to the street by including principal unit entrances on the street-facing elevation and sidewalks to Commissioners Road West;

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to reassess the timing of sidewalks along Reynolds Road from Commissioners Road to Helena Montague Avenue as noted in the City of London’s New Sidewalk Program;

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

  • a communication dated February 11, 2025, from J. Fleming - City Planning Solutions;

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

  • J. Flemming, The Tricar Group;

  • K. Crowley, Zelinka Priamo;

  • S. Fletcher;

  • F. Callahan;

  • D. Bennett;

  • V. Mitchel; and,

  • D. Shea;

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

  • the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS), which encourages growth in settlements areas and land use patterns based on densities and a mix of land uses that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment;

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

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

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

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.1.15   (4.1) Councillor S. Hillier - Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO) for the lands municipally known as 4423 Highbury Avenue South

At 1:47 PM, Mayor J. Morgan places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair

At 1:48 PM, Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the following actions be taken with respect to a Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO) for the lands municipally known as 4423 Highbury Avenue South:

a) the request to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to issue a Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO) for the lands municipally known as 4423 Highbury Avenue South, to designate these lands for Light Industrial uses, accommodating essential employment activities BE APPROVED;

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to work collaboratively with the owner of the Subject Lands and relevant provincial and municipal agencies to ensure that the development of the Subject Lands aligns with best practices for sustainable and strategic employment growth; and,

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to forward this resolution to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, local Members of Provincial Parliament, and other relevant stakeholders as a formal endorsement of the MZO request;

it being noted that a verbal delegation from M. Cory, MGP, with respect to this matter was received.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

8.2   4th Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee

2025-02-24 ICSC Report 4

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 4th Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by C. Rahman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) 2024 Drinking Water Annual Report and Summary Report for the City of London Drinking Water System

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Water & Wastewater, the 2024 Drinking Water Annual Report and Summary Report for the City of London Drinking Water System BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) Appointment of Consulting Engineer: RFP2024-256: 2026 Stoney Creek Trunk Sanitary Sewer Lining Project

Motion made by C. Rahman

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the appointment of a consulting engineer for the 2026 Stoney Creek Trunk Sanitary Sewer Lining Project:

a)    Dillon Consulting Limited BE APPOINTED to carry out consulting services to complete the detailed design, tendering and contract administration at an upset amount of $230,514.35, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 12.2(b) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated February 24, 2025, as Appendix “A”;

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.3) Contract Award: RFT2024-246 - Innovation Industrial Park Subdivision Phase 5

Motion made by C. Rahman

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following actions be taken with respect to the award of contract for the construction of Innovation Park Industrial Subdivision Phase 5:

a)    the bid submitted by VanRooyen Earthmoving Ltd. at its tendered price of $13,617,307.38, excluding HST, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by VanRooyen Earthmoving Ltd. was the lowest of 11 bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)    AECOM Canada ULC BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the construction administration and general construction oversight and contract for the construction of Innovation Industrial Park Subdivision Phase 5 in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $839,215.00, including 10% contingency, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

c)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated February 24, 2025, as Appendix “A”;

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

e)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done, relating to this project (RFT2024-246); and

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

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (2.4) Appointment of Consulting Engineers for the Duluth Crescent Subdivision and Roadworks

Motion made by C. Rahman

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following actions be taken with respect to the appointment of consulting engineers for the construction of an extension to Duluth Crescent:

a)     Archibald Gray & McKay Engineering Limited, BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the resident inspection and contract administration for the 2025 Duluth Crescent Subdivision and Roadworks project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $426,815.00, including 10% contingency, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2(g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the overall budget and the financing for the engineering portion of this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated February 24, 2025, as Appendix “A”;

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (2.5) Declare Surplus - City-Owned Properties (1725-1731-1737-1743-1801-1805-1811-1815 Cherrywood Trail)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to City-owned properties containing an area of approximately 31,000 square feet, representing eight (8) serviced building lots municipally known as 1725-1731-1737-1743-1801-1805-1811-1815 Cherrywood Trail, legally described as - Lots 28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35, Plan 33M-595, S/T EASE AS IN ER606963, City of London; Middlesex County, being part of PIN’s 080561401, 080561405, 080561399, 080561400, 080561398, 080561403, 080561404, 080561402, and further shown on the location map as appended to the staff report dated February 24, 2025 as Appendix “A” (the “Subject Properties”), the following actions be taken:

a)    the subject properties BE DECLARED SURPLUS; and

b)    the subject properties BE OFFERED for sale in accordance with the City’s Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy.

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (2.6) Declare Surplus - City-Owned Property - Medway Park Drive Cul-De-Sac

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to City-owned property legally described as Part 10, Being Part of Block12, Plan 33M-248, London Township being part of PIN 08138-0184, the following actions be taken:

a)    the subject property BE DECLARED SURPLUS; and

b)    the subject property (“Surplus Lands”) BE TRANSFERRED to the abutting property owner in accordance with the City’s Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy.

Motion Passed

8.2.8   (2.7) Request for Tender 2025-347 - Lease of City-Owned Farmland (Relates to Bill No. 81)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with the concurrence of the Manager of Purchasing and Supply, with respect to the City-owned lands as shown on Schedule A (Location Map) as appended to the staff report:

a) the following actions be taken:

i) the bid submitted by J.R. Fleming Farms LTD, for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of sixteen thousand and fifty dollars ($16,050.00) for a three (3) year term on Land Package A, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

ii) the bid submitted by Jeremy Witteveen, for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of twenty-four thousand five hundred seventy dollars ($24,570.00) for a three (3) year term on Land Package B, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

iii) the bid submitted by Rosati Farms Inc, for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of twenty thousand five hundred and sixty dollars ($20,560.00) for a two (2) year term on Land Package C, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

iv) the bid submitted by Rosati Farms Inc, for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of five thousand nine hundred and eleven dollars ($5,911.00) for a two (2) year term on Land Package D BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

v) the bid submitted by 806433 Ontario Ltd., for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of two hundred twenty-two thousand four hundred and ninety-eight dollars ($222,498.00) for a three (3) year term on Land Package E, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

vi) the bid submitted by 806433 Ontario Ltd, for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of one hundred thirteen thousand six hundred and forty-six dollars ($113,646.00) for a three (3) year term on Land Package F, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

vii) the bid submitted by J.R. Fleming Farms Ltd., for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of fifty thousand one hundred and forty-nine dollars ($50,149.00) for a three (3) year term on Land Package G, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

viii) the bid submitted by Rosati Farms Inc., for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of one thousand six hundred and eighty dollars ($1,680.00) for a three (3) year term on Land Package H, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

ix) the bid submitted by 806433 Ontario Ltd., for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of sixty-nine thousand one hundred and seventy-four dollars ($69,174.00) for a three (3) year term on Land Package I, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

x) the bid submitted by J.R. Fleming Farms Ltd., for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of twenty-four thousand two hundred sixty-nine dollars and forty cents ($24,269.40) for a three (3) year term on Land Package J, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

xi) the bid submitted by Samantha Terry, for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of seven thousand five hundred and forty dollars ($7,540.00) for a three (3) year term on Land Package K, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

xii) the bid submitted by J.R. Fleming Farms Ltd., for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of forty-seven thousand five hundred and sixty-four dollars ($47,564.00) for a three (3) year term on Land Package L, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

xiii) the bid submitted by 806433 Ontario Ltd., for lease of farmlands at the tendered annual lease amount of forty-two thousand two hundred and forty dollars ($42,240.00) for a three (3) year term on Land Package M, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this proponent submitted the highest offer and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications included in the tender;

b) the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 24, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 4, 2025 being a by-law to accept the farmland lease bids for Request for Tender No. 2025-347 and approve and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreements with each successful proponent.

Motion Passed

8.3   3rd Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2025-02-25 SPPC Report 3

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 3rd Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of items 3 (2.1) and 6 (4.2).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.2) Municipal Accommodation Tax - Amended By-law to Increase the Tax from 4% to 5% (Relates to Bill No. 83)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated February 25, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 4, 2025 to amend By-law 8290-227 a by-law to impose a Municipal Accommodation Tax to increase the Municipal Accommodation Tax from 4% to 5%.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.3) Eldon House Board of Directors – By-law Update (Relates to Bill No. 82)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to Eldon House Corporation By-law Update:

a)    the proposed by-law appended as Appendix ‘B’ to the staff report dated February 25, 2025, being A by-law to amend By-law A.-6825-162, as amended, respecting the Eldon House operation and management BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 4, 2025, to update references to the board, section 3.1 Board Composition and section 4.2(12) committees of the board; and

b)    on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the report dated February 25, 2025 respect to the Eldon House Corporation By-law Update BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (4.1) Consideration of Appointment to the Eldon House Board of Directors

Motion made by S. Lewis

That Robert Fraser BE APPOINTED to the Eldon House Board of Directors for the term ending November 14, 2026.

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (4.3) Consideration of Appointment to the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the consideration of Appointments to the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, Community Advisory Committee on Planning, Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee BE REFERRED to a future meeting of Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to allow for Civic Administration to provide for an electronic selection process.

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (4.4) Consideration of Appointment to the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the consideration of Appointments to the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, Community Advisory Committee on Planning, Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee BE REFERRED to a future meeting of Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to allow for Civic Administration to provide for an electronic selection process.

Motion Passed

8.3.9   (4.5) Consideration of Appointment to the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the consideration of Appointments to the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, Community Advisory Committee on Planning, Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee BE REFERRED to a future meeting of Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to allow for Civic Administration to provide for an electronic selection process.

Motion Passed

8.3.10   (5.1) Appointment Request to the Community and Protective Services Committee

Motion made by S. Lewis

That Councillor P. Cuddy BE APPOINTED to the Community and Protective Services Committee for the term ending November 30, 2025; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated February 19, 2025 from Councillor P. Cuddy with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.1) 2025 Assessment Growth Funding Allocation

Motion made by S. Lewis

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the 2025 Assessment Growth Funding Allocation Report BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated February 20, 2025 from C. Butler with respect to this matter.

At 2:04 PM, Mayor J. Morgan places Councillors C. Rahman in the Chair.

At 2:05 PM, Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

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

b) Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the April 30, 2025 meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee with respect to the City’s debt levels and debt servicing costs, including information on current policies on debt along with future projections and graphs showing debt levels and debt servicing costs, and debt servicing costs as a percentage of revenue.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Item 3, clause 2.1, as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2025 Assessment Growth Funding Allocation Report:

a)   the report BE RECEIVED for information; and

b)   Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the April 30, 2025 meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee with respect to the City’s debt levels and debt servicing costs, including information on current policies on debt along with future projections and graphs showing debt levels and debt servicing costs, and debt servicing costs as a percentage of revenue.

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated February 20, 2025 from C. Butler with respect to this matter.

8.3.6   (4.2) London Public Library Board of Directors Vacancy

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the vacant position declared by the London Public Library Board of Directors:

a)  the communication dated January 24, 2025 from B. Gibson, London Public Library Board Chair BE RECEIVED; and

b)  Mayor J. Morgan BE APPOINTED to the London Public Library Board for the term ending November 14, 2026.

At 2:35 PM, Mayor J. Morgan places Councillor E. Peloza in the Chair.

At 2:38 PM, Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the vacant position declared by the London Public Library Board of Directors:

a)  the communication dated January 24, 2025 from B. Gibson, London Public Library Board Chair BE RECEIVED;

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the vacant position declared by the London Public Library Board of Directors:

b)  Mayor J. Morgan BE APPOINTED to the London Public Library Board for the term ending November 14, 2026.

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

Item 6, clause 4.2, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the vacant position declared by the London Public Library Board of Directors:

a)  the communication dated January 24, 2025 from B. Gibson, London Public Library Board Chair BE RECEIVED; and

b)  Mayor J. Morgan BE APPOINTED to the London Public Library Board for the term ending November 14, 2026.

8.4   4th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2025-02-18 CPSC Report - with attachments

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the Council recess at this time, for 5 minutes.

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 2:54 PM and reconvenes at 3:01 PM.

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 4th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of item 12 (2.11).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.4.1   (1.1) Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) 2nd Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by D. Ferreira

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

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.2) Urban Forest Health - Status of Pests and Pathogens

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the 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

8.4.4   (2.3) 2024 Administrative Amendments to the Traffic and Parking By-law (Relates to Bill No. 91)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

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

8.4.5   (2.4) Appointment of Consultant Engineer for Dingman Sports Park and RFP2024-092

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the 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

8.4.6   (2.5) Approval of Single and Sole Source Agreements for Operations and Management of Three City of London EnviroDepots

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the 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

8.4.7   (2.6) Parks and Recreation Master Plan Annual Report

Motion made by D. Ferreira

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

8.4.8   (2.7) London Fire Department Single Source Request for a Technical Rescue Vehicle (SS-2025-027)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

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

8.4.9   (2.8) Integrated Employment Services - Single Source Procurements

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated 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

8.4.10   (2.9) Business Licensing By-law Schedule 16 – Refreshment Vehicles - Review and Proposed Amendments (Relates to Bill No.’s 85 and 89)

Motion made 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 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

8.4.11   (2.10) Amendment to Fees and Charges By-Law - Honk Mobile (Relates to Bill No.’s 79 and 86)

Motion made 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

8.4.13   (3.1) 3rd Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by D. Ferreira

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

8.4.12   (2.11) Adult Entertainment Body-Rub Attendant Licensing - Information Report

Motion made by D. Ferreira

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 made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the staff report, dated February 18, 2025, related to an Adult Entertainment Body-Rub Attendant Licensing Information Report BE REFERRED to Civic Administration to report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee after the Supreme Court issues its ruling on Bill C-36 sections; it being noted that sections 286.2 and 286.3 of Bill C-36 may materially impact any changes to municipal by-laws and licensing and that a Supreme court decision is expected in 2025

At 3:18 PM, Councillor J. Pribil leaves the meeting.

At 3:19 PM, Councillor J. Pribil enters the meeting.

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by D. Ferreira

that the motion be amended to remove the reference to the Supreme Court’s ruling on Bill C-36 and its purpose for referral, and TO DIRECT Civic Administration to report back with legal advice on this matter.

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the staff report, dated February 18, 2025, related to an Adult Entertainment Body-Rub Attendant Licensing Information Report BE REFERRED to Civic Administration to report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with legal advice with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Item 12, clause 2.11, as amended, reads as follows:

That the staff report, dated February 18, 2025, related to an Adult Entertainment Body-Rub Attendant Licensing Information Report BE REFERRED to Civic Administration to report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with legal advice with respect to this matter.

8.5   1st Report of the Audit Committee

2025-02-12 Audit Report 1

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 1st Report of the Audit Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of item 5 (4.3).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.5.1   (1.1) Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.1) Election of Vice Chair for the term ending November 30, 2025

Motion made by E. Peloza

That Councillor S. Stevenson BE APPOINTED Vice Chair for the term ending November 30, 2025.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (4.1) Briefing Note From Internal Audit - MNP

Motion made by E. Peloza

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

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (4.2) Internal Audit Follow Up Activities Dashboard - MNP

Motion made by E. Peloza

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

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (4.4) Proposed Risk-Based Internal Audit Plan for Years 2025 and 2026 - MNP

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the communication dated February 12, 2025 from MNP with respect to the Proposed Risk-Based Internal Audit Plan for years 2025 and 2026 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.7   (4.5) Audit Planning Report for the Year Ending December 31, 2024 - KPMG

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the KPMG Audit Planning Report, for the year ending December 31, 2024, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.8   (4.6) London Downtown Closed-Circuit Television Program for the Year Ending December 31, 2024 - KPMG

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the KPMG Report on Specified Auditing Procedures for the London Downtown Closed-Circuit Television Program, for the year ending December 31, 2024, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.9   (4.7) 2023 Audited Board Financial Statements – Old East Village Business Improvement Area Board of Management

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the report including Appendix ‘A’, Financial Statements of the Old East Village Business Improvement Area Board of Management for the year ending December 31, 2023, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (4.3) London Housing Development Projects - Lessons Learned Review - MNP

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the communication dated January 29, 2025 from MNP with respect to the London Housing Development Projects - Lessons Learned Review BE RECEIVED.

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the communication dated January 29, 2025 from MNP with respect to the London Housing Development Projects - Lessons Learned Review BE RECEIVED and BE REFERRED to the next meeting of the Governance Working Group to review and consider any policy change recommendations regarding the implementation of affordable housing that utilizes multiple levels of funding.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 5, clause 4.3, reads as follows:

That the communication dated January 29, 2025 from MNP with respect to the London Housing Development Projects - Lessons Learned Review BE RECEIVED and BE REFERRED to the next meeting of the Governance Working Group to review and consider any policy change recommendations regarding the implementation of affordable housing that utilizes multiple levels of funding.

8.6   5th Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee

2025-03-03 ICSC Report 5

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 5th Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of item 3 (2.1)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.6.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by C. Rahman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.6.2   (2.2) Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act Report for the Calendar Year 2024

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the report regarding the Public Sector Salary Disclosures Act Report for the Calendar Year 2024 BE RECEIVED for information purposes.

Motion Passed

9.   Added Reports

That it BE NOTED that Councillor S. Lehman presented the 4th Report of the Council in Closed Session, by noting progress was made with respect to items 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 as noted on the public agenda. (6.1/4/ICSC) (6.1/4/CPSC) (6.1/3/SPPC).

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

At 3:51 PM, Mayor J. Morgan places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair.

At 3:58 PM, Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair

Councillor P. Van Meerbergen enquires with respect to the initiatives the City of London is taking responding to tariffs, Mayor J. Morgan provides a response.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

At 3:59 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen leaves the meeting.

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 78 to 99 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 78 to 99 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 78 to 99 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Franke

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 100 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Franke

That Second Reading of Bill No. 100 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Franke

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.100 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 4:02 PM.

Appendix: New Bills

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (3 hours, 15 minutes)

Okay, thank you, please be seated. Welcome to the fourth meeting of Municipal Council, March 4th, it’s now the month that spring starts in. So, everybody’s very excited about that. Some other stuff going on today that I don’t wanna talk about yet, but we can all get look forward to, hopefully, sun year and better weather ahead.

I wanna start with the land acknowledgement. We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands at the Anishinaabak, Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwak, and Adawan-Dran peoples. We honor respect the history languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area, the two-row Wampum Belt Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Silver Covenant Chain, Beaver Hunting Grounds, Beaver Hunting Grounds of the Haudenosaunee Nanfan Treaty of 1701, the McKee Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796.

You’re on track Treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabak and the Dish With One Spoon, Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabak and Haudenosaunee. Pre-Indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and the Muncie Delaware Nation, who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs. The City of London is also committed to making every effort to providing alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request to make a request specific to this meeting, please contact Council Agenda at London.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. I now get to introduce our singer today.

Alex Cooper is an emerging singer-songwriter from London, Ontario, Canada. Blending alternative rock in Americana, which I just got permission to say, “Canadiana,” so maybe not Americana today. Her heartfelt lyrics and soulful melodies tell honest stories that connect with audiences. New to the stage, Alex is making an impact with intimate live performances.

As she prepares to record her first songs, she continues to share her journey through live music. She will be this month’s featured performer at the London Music Office’s Music Talks series on March 18th at Palisade Social Bowl. Please rise and join me in welcoming Alex, who will now perform the National Anthem for us. ♪ Oh, Hader, our home and tiff land ♪ ♪ Through hatred, love we see ♪ ♪ True, not strong, free, far away ♪ ♪ We stand on guard for the key ♪ ♪ Our land, low for east ♪ ♪ We stand on guard ♪ Let’s proceed with the disclosures of continuing interest.

Councilor Meg Alister. Thank you for declaring a conflict to interest on 13 of the PEC agenda, 3.6 from the committee agenda, and that relates to Bill 100, if that could be called separately, thank you. Okay, other conflicts in your interests? Okay, seeing none, recognitions, I have no recognitions for today.

Review of confidential matters to be considered in public. There are none. Council on closed session, we have three items to go into closed session for. I look for a mover and a seconder to move into closed session.

Councilor Hopkins and Councilor Hillier, we’ll open that in the system for voting. I vote yes. Councilor Trossa. Indicating voting yes.

Councilor Trossa also indicating voting yes, Frank. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, we’ll be moving to committee room five, colleagues. Okay, please be seated.

Okay, we’re on to the confirmation and signing of the previous minutes. We have the third meeting on February 11th. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for that. Councilor Hillier, seconded by Councilor Van Meerberg, and any discussion on the minutes?

Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Communications and petitions, we have six items. I know one council would like to refer 6.1 to a different spot.

So maybe I’ll do 6.1 first, and then I think the rest of them, we can refer to the other parts of the agenda. So I’ll look for Council Deputy Mayor Lewis. Okay, go ahead. Yes, thank you, Your Worship.

I do want to move very referral on item 6.1, the integrity commissioner’s annual report. I’d like to move that this be referred to a future meeting of infrastructure and corporate services committee to allow for further discussion from council and potentially have the integrity commissioner appear before us. Once I’ve got a seconder for that, I’d actually like to speak to the reason why. Okay, before I look for a seconder, I just want to give you peace and information.

So, clerks have told me that council conduct and the components that refer to the integrity commissioner kind of generally would be SPPC, which would be everybody. So it could be referred there. You’ve identified a different committee. I’ll just look to see if that’s helpful.

That’s fine. I’m amenable to the clerks direction for which committee is the most appropriate. Okay, Councilor Stevenson wants a second. Okay.

We would have been seconded. Do you want to provide some rationale now? Yes, I’m not going to go into all the details of the report, but I have some serious concerns about an annual report that’s not even annual, but actually encompasses almost two years worth of work. I have some concern about some of the content within the report as well, both language used and some of the commentary given that I don’t actually recall council providing direction or asking for advice on, such as potential provincial legislative changes.

So I think there needs to be an opportunity as this has not come through committee. And as we don’t have delegations at council, I think that this needs to go to a committee where colleagues have an opportunity to discuss the content, potentially provide some direction, potentially have a delegation from our integrity commissioner, if they wish to attend. But I think that this needs more than just a receive. I think this warrants some further discussion.

Listen, so Mr. Abrams is here. However, referral takes precedent. So that means we’re referring it.

We’re going to talk about the referral. If you’re looking to ensure that they’re present at SPPC, it might be advantageous to actually have that request as part of the motion. ‘Cause to the way you just described it, it would go to SPPC and maybe you might want to ask questions. I think it would be better just to make clear that we’d like that.

And then we can make sure we vote on that so that we can make sure that we schedule that with their presence, the next SPPC. Okay, so I’ll let you respond, but I think that piece should be added in just so it’s clear. So we don’t end up having any miscommunication if that’s the desire of the motion. Sure, I’m happy to add that in.

My original comment was should the Interior Commissioner wish to seek delegation status then they’d have the opportunity to do so. But if we want to just build that in unless colleagues are opposed to that, then I don’t see why we can’t just request their appearance at the committee. So if the clerks can assist with language on that, I’m satisfied. I will get language.

I’m just trying to avoid a two-step process where we go to SPPC, people have some questions, they’re not there, we might get to the next one. This seems like it’ll cover it off. So unless anybody objects, I’m just gonna work that into the motion that’s on the floor. I see no objections, okay, we’re gonna do that.

Is that an objection? Okay, then I’m gonna add you to the speakers list then. So the referral is moved and seconded. We’re referring this to SPPC.

So the deputy mayor has spoken to the referral. I’ll continue the speakers list now. I have Councillor Trocel. Thank you, I guess through the chair, this is a quick question.

Can there be information in there about the costs not broken down to case files ‘cause that could disclose case files that we don’t know about, but there’s nothing much in there about the question. I’d like to know about that, even if it’s an aggregate number. Can that be included? So Councillor, the cost wasn’t part of the report that we’re referring.

I think if you’d like to have other components at that meeting, that would probably come from our staff, not necessarily the integrity commissioner. And so one second, I’m gonna find the best way if that’s what you wanna do to do that. Okay, so first have that information. They can get that for you.

You could ask for it at any time. And given they have it, if the question came up at the meeting, that this was going to, it would be available there. So I don’t think you need to add any motion. So the short answer to your question is yes, it’s available and yes, you can get it anytime.

Just for the record then, could I just make a motion, which I hope would be friendly, that we request staff to have that available at the meeting so we could ask about it? Yeah, so there’s no, we’re not gonna do a friendly amendment on that. We’re just going to do this as an additional amendment to, as a, okay, so the referral is amenable. So he’s amending the referral to add an additional component.

Is there a seconder for what Councilor Trossa is asking the deputy mayor is willing to second. Now we’re on Councilor Trossa’s amendment to add in just making sure the staff bring the costs and make them available at the meeting where we’re referring this report to. Is there any discussion on that? Okay, sorry, yeah, go ahead.

Yeah, can I just suggest, ‘cause I heard you say have the available at the meeting, but can I suggest that it’s available as an appendix to this report on the public agenda? I think it’s important that the public have access to that information as well as Councilors in advance of the committee meeting. The clerk will do a memo and attach it to the agenda for that meeting. Okay, any other discussion?

Okay, so the amendment that the motion be amended to include costs of services as an appendix to the agenda for the meeting. Okay, so moved and seconded. I’m gonna open that for voting. On just the- Was in the vote motion carries 15 to zero.

So now the as amended motion, willing to move Deputy Mayor, still second, Councillor Stevenson. Okay, as amended motion, I’m looking for speakers on the as amended motion, which is referred to the committee and we’ll have a memo on the costs associated with the integrity commissioner services. Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Was in the vote motion carries 15 to zero.

Okay, I’m gonna look for a general motion to refer all the rest of the items to the various components of the agenda. Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Layman. Any discussion on doing that? Okay, we’ll open that for voting.

Was in the vote motion carries 15 to zero. All right, motion and so which notice is given, there’s none, which means, great news, we’re on to reports. Planning and Environment Committee’s first, I believe Chair Layman’s gonna present that. Thank you, Mayor.

I’m pleased to put the fourth report, the Planning and Environment Committee on the floor, pulling item 13 due to Councillor McAllister’s conflict. I’ve also been aware of one request to pull item 15. Okay, so so far, 13 and 15 will be dealt with separately. Any other items colleagues would like dealt with separately?

Okay, back to you, Chair. So I’ll remove all items excluding 13 and 15. Okay, all items are on the floor except 13 and 15, moved by the Chair, any discussion on these general items? Go ahead, Councillor McAllister.

Thank you, and through the Mayor, I just wanna speak to item eight, this is the 1484 Gore Road. I did come to the PEC meeting. I recognize infill projects to stir up some controversy in neighborhoods. I appreciate my residents reaching out.

I would say, I think this is gentle infill, especially on the scale that we’ve seen. This is a three and a half and a two-story townhouse complex. I hope the issues that were brought up on our residents are taken into consideration, obviously with the site plan. But I do think this is probably the first in many that we’ll see, I know a lot of my colleagues have already had infill projects.

My ward has not had as many, so this is kind of a new thing for them. I do still encourage them to come out, have their voices heard, because the community input is important that we do take into account. But recognizing that we do have a housing crisis and we’re trying to get units online, so people can call all parts of the city home, so thank you. All right, thank you.

Any other speakers to the general motion on the floor? Facing none, we’re gonna open up for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Go ahead, Councilor.

Thank you, I’ll put item 13 on the floor. All right, 13’s on the floor, any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll open up for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero with one recusal.

And go ahead, Chair. Thank you, I’ll put item 15 on the floor. All right, 15’s on the floor, any discussion on 15. Go ahead, Councilor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And I asked for this item to be pulled. I wanna, first of all, say that I have no problem with EV battery plants and wanna thank the developer for the support that he gives our London community, but I’m not sure why we are fast tracking this application. We know that we’re going to receive an industrial strategy plan shortly.

I’d rather have decisions made like this, city made as opposed to province made. So I will not be supporting this item. Okay, other speakers, go ahead, Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes, and unfortunately I wasn’t able to be at this planning meeting, but since this is being pulled, I did have one question through the chair to staff regarding if this moves forward with this count.

I believe it’s about 100 acres. Would this count towards whatever urban growth boundary number we pick, whether that 1,400 or 2,000 number with this 100 acres count into that for the plans for expansion. If we move forward with those options. Mr.

Mathers. Through Your Worship, so it’s part of the industrial land needs assessment, there would be a different number. So, but this value would be counted towards that number, that value that comes out of that process. And we’re expecting a report in the next couple months on the land needs for industrial specifically.

Go ahead. Thank you, and if I could just follow up just for clarity. So then there’s gonna be about 1,400 to 2,000 through the urban growth boundary process. And then there’s gonna be additional amounts that this number might fall into in the industrial process.

I’m seeing nods, okay. Just wanted to see clarity, thank you. Any other speakers to this? Go ahead, Councilor Troso.

Thank you, through the chair. I had raised some questions about this as well, which I think the chair answered most of them for me. And I thank you for that, Councilor Lehman. I’m gonna vote against this not because I’m necessarily opposed to what they’re doing here, but quite frankly, I just don’t like the idea of provincial zoning, zoning orders, it’s really a matter of principle with me.

And I’d much rather see this come in some expedited way to our Council, I understand that might not be possible, but I just want to register my strong feelings about provincial zoning orders, which I think really have the potential to encroach on municipal autonomy, which is not saying that’s happening here. And it’s been explained to me that there are some legitimate reasons for this. And I too appreciate the very good role that Dan Corr has played with respect to some of our other things, and I went that recognized. So I just wanted to just put that on the floor.

Thank you. Thanks, Councilor Lehman, I have myself on the list too. Do you want me to go? Okay, well then Deputy Mayor Lewis, take the chair.

I will take the chair, set the timer and acknowledge Mayor Morgan. I just got a couple questions from our staff through the presiding officer. As was articulated in the report that came forward, a ministerial zoning order triggered by municipality is a request of the province to do the process, but all of the components of the planning process and those things are generally still met, maybe accelerated, but still all the pieces are met, all the consultations, all of those go to the ministry for discussion, and then second question, we still have a say at the other end on site plan approval for any sort of zoning, should the province approve it? Is that correct or am I missing anything on that?

Well, let’s ask Ms. McNeely. Thank you through the chair, that’s correct. There are report studies that the applicant would probably have to do, and that would be on the request of the province.

However, in terms of the consultation with indigenous communities and other consultation are required, and then the matter would be referred back to staff for site plan approval. Mayor Morgan, that’s the only question I had. Thank you, returning the chair to you, noting use of Councilor Lehman on the list. Okay, Councilor Lehman, go ahead.

Thank you, I’m supporting this. This is an opportunity for an addition of good many jobs to come to this region. I’m aware of this, and it works for a while, and have had conversations with Dan Quar. There’s a definite tie-in to the Volkswagen plan.

Obviously, prior to January, I thought that was good to align ourselves with green energy production and industry, and again, tying ourselves more to the automotive opportunities in this region, but given the actions of today with the tariffs being imposed by the American administration, has brought to light, what is the true motives behind these tariffs? Is it truly fentanyl and illegal immigration hearts, or some other component of this? And it has been suggested that potential targets might be our automotive industry. So I can think of nothing better than today is to support initiatives that will allow for diversification into automotive companies that are not American, specifically Volkswagen, which is German.

I think this sends a very good signal that we will not have all our H and one basket, either in London or in Canada. So I think this is very important. I hope my colleagues will support this. Any other speakers to this who haven’t spoken yet?

Deputy Mayor Lewis, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. So I’m also gonna rise and speak in support of this. I certainly understand Councillor Trussau’s comments about the principle of provincial involvement, ‘cause it should be a concern for us at any time.

But I think that we have seen also some changes happen to the MZO process since the province last had some challenges with some decisions it made in that regard. And so I think the new process has been improved. And the fact that municipalities get to weigh in at the start actually is a really important step for me rather than waiting to hear from us at the very end. I recognize Councillor Hopkins’ concerns about process.

But I think there are times when our processes just don’t work in terms of timelines and securing an opportunity that might otherwise pass us by and go to another jurisdiction. I will also say, and I wanted to take this opportunity to note following on Councillor Layman’s comments that the diverse creation of our economy now more than ever is really apparent in terms of how critical it is we do that. It’s also worth noting, ‘cause I’ve had questions from individuals about whether or not the Volkswagen plant would even go ahead, but I think it’s worth noting that that plant is in part intended to export to the globe, not just to the US. In fact, the majority of its exports are envisioned to go to the global market, not to the American market.

And so this is an opportunity for us to strengthen the supply chain for that plant by getting this opportunity moving forward at what is a bit of an expedited process with the province. I also wanna acknowledge and appreciate Councillor Frank’s question, ‘cause I think it’s a really good one. We’ve talked a lot about the residential urban growth boundary expansion, but we really haven’t even started on staff has started, but we at council haven’t even started to look at the preliminary draft and what the needs might be, knowing that this acreage is going to be counted in terms of growth in the UGB recommendations, I think is important to know to. And so I think Councillor Frank asking that question was quite helpful.

I also think that when we look at this one, unless there’s any drastic changes, there’s dedication of land to the conservation authority. I think it’s the upper Thames, it’s not Kettle Creek, but I’m seeing nods from staff. So there’s a couple of conservation authorities along that high area of corridor. And I’ve heard some comments as well.

In fact, I was asked by a member of Provincial Parliament about this at an event recently, but doesn’t London already have land? And we’ve heard very clearly that, yes, London has some industrial land, but a lot of it that’s available is located up around the airport or in other sections of the city and that with respect to the Volkswagen supply chain, there are some requirements for proximity to the 401 corridor where we don’t have much available at the moment within the UGB. So I think that this is a good fit and I’ll be supporting it. All right, any other speakers?

Okay, so this is moved and seconded. This is the committee’s recommendation move by the chair. I’ll open that for voting. Opposing the vote motion carries 13 to two.

Go ahead, Chair. Thank you Mayor, that concludes the fourth report of the Planning Environment Committee. Excellent, thank you. We’ll move on to the fourth report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee.

I’ll go to Councilor and Chair Raman. Thank you, Mayor. And I’m looking to put the fourth report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee on the floor, items one through eight, just to note that all were supported unanimously at committee. Okay, the whole thing is on the floor.

First off, does anybody want anything pulled separately from this particular? No, okay, then the whole thing is on the floor. I’ll look for any discussion on any of these items. Seeing none, then we can proceed with voting.

I’ll open the vote. Opposing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you. All right, on to the third report of SPPC.

I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis to present that one. Thank you, worship. So I have had a request to pull 8.33. That’s with respect to the assessment growth funding.

And so I won’t include that in my initial motion. And I’ve also had a request to pull 8.36. That’s the London Public Library Board of Directors Vacancy. So I am prepared to move items one, two, four, five, seven, eight, nine, and 10.

All right, does anybody have anything else they’d want separate? So far three and six are gonna be dealt with separately. All right, seeing none. So you just said you’re willing to move the rest.

So that means we have one, two, four, five, and seven through 10 on the floor. Any discussion on those? All right, we’ll open that for voting. Was in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

And I’ll now put item three with respect to the assessment growth report on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor. I’ll look to Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, yes.

I’d like to add an amendment to this motion that part B say civic administration be directed to report back to the April 30th, 2025 meeting of Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee with respect to the city’s debt levels and debt servicing costs, including information on current policies on debt, along with the future projections and graphs, showing debt levels and debt servicing costs and debt servicing costs as a percentage of revenue. Okay, is there a seconder for that? Good, Councillor Pribble. Do you want to provide your rationale then, Councillor?

I’ll save my comments till after my call. All right, I’ll look for speakers to the amendment. Go ahead, Councillor Vameer-Burkin. Thank you, Mayor.

It strikes me that when it comes to debt levels and indeed overall fiscal reporting, we receive, I believe it’s twice a year, updates from staff already. And I think most of what’s being looked for here is covered in that and as memory serves, I think the next update we will be receiving is in the not too distant future. Perhaps I could ask Ms. Barband to maybe give us a little bit more information.

I can’t recall exactly what’s in those reports, but I do know we’ve received them on a regular basis. So my basic question is will the debt levels and these types of questions be addressed in that report? So that’s through the chair to Ms. Barband.

Councillor Vameer-Burkin, we just need your mic. No, sir. Thank you, through the chair. So essentially on April 30th, we are actually intending to bring forward our yearly, our year-end capital and operating budget monitoring report.

Within those reports, we always have a section related to debt and those levels. So there’s a great deal of information that we bring forward. A lot of the information that the councilor is requesting is included in there. Not all of it is necessarily in the same place, certainly as part of the recently adopted or multi-year budget annual update for 2025.

All of the debt levels would have been included as part of that information that is in the sir-locks report that comes forward at the end. Certainly with respect, the majority of that information is reported on. The only item that we don’t regularly report on is the debt levels per household. However, I will turn your attention to the audit committee report.

KPMG does an audit planning memo and one of the indicators that they report on happens to be before council today and that is the debt level per household. So that information is already available. We normally report on that. So it’s certainly something that, if council wishes to supplement and have additional information, we’re happy to oblige, but certainly that’s our intent is to report on that information and the majority of it on the April 30th date to the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee.

Go ahead, Councilor Vameer-Briggan. So as a follow up, it seems that in the interest of efficiency, it’s probably wouldn’t be necessary to have this motion. Would you concur with that, Ms. Bobon?

So I’m not gonna make Ms. Bobon answer an opinion because— No, that’s fine. Yeah, and now just say— No, that’s fine. If council wants to get additional information package together, we can make that decision.

So what? We have to have staff. Thank you, Mayor. ‘Cause what I’ve heard with this response is that the information that’s being looked for has already been worked on and will be coming forward soon.

So it would strike me that this is somewhat superfluous and in the interest of efficiency, we should just look for the report coming back. And is it fair to say, Ms. Bobon, that any information that has been asked for here would be added in the upcoming report if it’s not already in? Well, that’ll go to Ms.

Bobon. I need your mic again, Councilor. Through your worship, certainly the majority of this information we already planned to put in. I’m certainly happy to supplement it with a little bit of information in addition.

I will note that our debt management policies are part of the strategic, we’re all encapsulated as part of our strategic financial framework that Council approved at the end of 2023. So that does draw, there is a separate section particularly with respect to debt. We would necessarily duplicate that because that’s information that is inherent in the work that we do and that we use as a base. Also with respect to one of our policies, we do know that coming forward in March will also be our surplus deficit policy that is coming forward through to the Budget Committee as well, which certainly is one of the key tools as well that we use with respect to our debt policies and management of that debt in the future.

So the majority of that information we’re happy to include and there’s not much different than what we would normally do anyways. Thank you very much. Okay, other speakers to this. Go ahead, Councilor Stevenson.

Thank you, I’ll make my comments then. The reason for bringing this forward is when I look at the old multi-year budgets from previous terms, in it there was a narrative around debt strategy, debt management strategy and there were graphs and that kind of thing. So given that in a report like the assessment growth, it’s being mentioned. I just wanted to ask for there to be a narrative to help explain to the public just what our set strategy is when we mention in the assessment growth report that it’s vital these surplus policies that we have be allocated to the debt due to what we’ve done.

I personally would just like to understand that better because I would prefer to see all of our assessment money go to services that would help our growing city. And I don’t really wanna see large surpluses at the end of the year. I’d like to see us closer to it. So if we’re counting on these surpluses, if it’s vital to our debt strategy, then I would just like to understand that a little bit better.

Otherwise, I’m not sure why it’s in the assessment growth report. So what I’m looking for mostly are graphs so that it’s more visual and understandable to the public and just a general understanding of what our strategy is regarding debt and what the debt management strategy is for that. When I spoke with finance about this, we picked the April 30th date because it aligns with the other reports that are coming and this would just be a small amount of supplementary information. So I’m hoping for council support.

I have myself on the list next. I’ll have Councilor Raman take the chair. Thank you, I have the chair, go ahead. So I don’t have a problem supporting this motion and I’ll tell you why.

‘Cause if members of council or a member of council is looking for some additional information around debt policy debt management, at the time that we’re receiving that information, given the information is readily available, I don’t believe it’s a lot of extra work for our staff to just kind of bring it together. I’m gonna support that and I’ll tell you why because the management of debt in the city is actually really important. It’s important to our ability to manage taxpayer servicing of that debt, as well as important to our credit rating agency of which debt is a critical component. And I think it’s really important for colleagues to have a full understanding about how our existing policies support the management of debt, both the assessment growth policies as well as the surplus policy.

One of the ways that we deal with issue or authorized but unissued debt is when we have the ability to take it off the books through those policies, we can, which means we can still do the things that we are planning on doing with that debt without actually having to issue it out into the market. The credit rating is exceptionally important for the management of that debt because how much we pay for that debt and the interest rates we get are a function of our credit rating, which is a function of our debt management policy. So I wanna support what the councilor’s, the information the councilor’s looking for because this discussion that we will have, if there’s any misunderstanding at all about how our policies actually put us in a very good financial position to manage debt, I want that to be crystal clear through that discussion. And if that means we need a little bit of extra information or information that’s available in a number of spots coming together in one spot, I think that’s a reasonable request to ask.

So I’ll support the councilor’s motion and I look forward to the discussion in April. Thank you, returning the chair to Councilor Perbal and Councilor Perbal was on the list. Sorry, it was Council Perbal was on the list and then Councilor Perbal was on, okay. Thank you and I will certainly be supporting it.

I do wanna see the additional information and I do think that we need to be responsible and control our debt in the best possible way. On the other hand, I do believe also that we gotta maximize our opportunities. And again, if potentially we can do some of the surpluses or if we dedicated to the economic growth of our city, guess what we potentially might be generating additional revenues and we’ll be able to pay off more debt. So I will certainly support it that I do want this additional information so we can 100% maximize our opportunities.

Thank you, Councillor Peruzza. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As I rise as a Councillor, audit chair, budget chair.

Just mindful that we’ve had this conversation, absolutely debt affects many aspects of the corporation. This is a conversation that we’ve had at STPC and Council that we will be having an infrastructure and corporate services committee that you’ll hear about later how it came up at audit and budget also comes up in March. And just really mindful of having heard from staff that the information’s already in existence. Yes, it might be in multiple reports or places and just maybe reporting changes or notes at the bottom of the pages that would be helpful in reminding us of where these live.

Just really cognizant of not having the same debt servicing conversation or ratios at multiple committees, multiple times. That’s my hesitation and something like that. If we just want information where we’re at, absolutely. But if mindful of what motions then would start coming and reliving that same conversation, and if one doesn’t pass as we saw at the multi-year budget cycle update that we just had that this could be another opportunity, then budget and everything.

So that’s my caution. All right, any other speakers to this? Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, your worship and through you.

First of all, I will say I’m a little bit more comfortable with this version than an earlier draft that I was consulted on. I do, however, have a little bit of a hesitation and I agree with Councillor Palosa in terms of the, I want to have the conversation once. I don’t want to have it over and over and over again. At the same time, I do know that there are, if we look at graphs right now and we had this discussion again back in the multi-year budget update about where debt may be headed in the immediate future years.

But I think that there’s an important piece here around context. So obviously, if we’re undertaking some debt because we are building a 50 plus million dollar underpass on Adelaide, which thank you. I used yesterday to get to a doctor’s appointment instead of waiting for a train. So I’m really, really grateful for that.

But that is going to be a debt servicing that’s going to go on the books and take a number of years for us to pay off. And so while I would, I think the graphs and some visual learning information is valuable, I also wonder, and then looking through you to see if staff can comment on whether or not it’s possible. And again, I’m mindful of their workload, but any context in terms of major capital projects that influence that graph rising, and I don’t know what those might be myself. Are we going to need a new wastewater treatment plant?

Are we going to build another underpass? Are we going to, what does that mean in terms of seeing the debt servicing number going up when our GMIS and our planning documents may be projecting a major infrastructure investment, which is going to influence that graph. And then over the course of 20 years, that graph will drop down as we pay that debt off. So I’m just wondering through you, Chair, if staff can provide any context related to this visual learning, or if that’s a workload that’s not going to be reasonable, like I just don’t know, but I’m worried about getting numbers without context.

Ms. Berbo. Through your worship. So I think I don’t have the numbers right in front of me, but I believe a lot of the future debt that is projected in the table that the counselor had included as a subset from the budget as part of her correspondence to council is concentrated in a specific number of projects specifically.

I think Mr. Murray does have that information and probably can tell you that today, but certainly that information is available. We have it as part of the budget annual update that was presented. So it’s certainly context that we can provide as part of a report back and possibly even at the moment, ‘cause I believe he has that information, so.

Ms. Murray. Thank you, through you, your worship. Yeah, so I can advise certainly that what we will provide back as part of the April 30th report should this amendment be supported is a recap of information that is in place and coming out of the 2025 budget update.

So it will be a recap of what council has approved and endorsed up to this point. So to give you some examples of significant projects with upcoming debt, the protective services training facility is a significant one that was approved through the multi-year budget. The LTC facility replacement is another significant project involving debt. LMCH regeneration involves debt.

There was additional a debt added for the rapid transit project as well. So off the top of my head, those are four projects that were significant contributors to the increase, projected increase in debt going forward. What I will emphasize though, is that the information, again, we provide back in on April 30th, will be based on 2025 budgets. We, over the course of the coming months, will be in the process of updating, refreshing, and rolling forward our debt projections, and those will be provided in the 2026 budget update this fall.

The other piece of context I’ll add for you, Deputy Marius. There’s a number of projects that Mr. Re mentioned, which are the subject of our advocacy framework with the province asking the province to take a partnership role with the municipality and supporting. So I think that’s important context as well.

We may have debt in the plan, but we are actively engaging with other levels of government to support our significant capital plans, as well as partners in the building of the city. Go ahead. I’m just gonna say thank you. That was helpful information for me on this process.

Any other speakers who haven’t spoke at? Councilor Layman. Thank you. Another project was a widening Warren Cliff.

Is that one of the ones that will be included in our debt forecasting? Mr. Murray. Thank you, through your worship.

The widening of Warren Cliff and I believe you’re specifically perhaps referring to the project at Horton and Warren Cliff. That project was the additional funding was not included in the multi-year budget. So that will need to be a consideration for the next 2028 to 2031 multi-year budget. Go ahead.

Yeah, I guess the point of that question is, and just to follow up on the Deputy Mayor, I did have a conversation with Ms. Barbara because we were looking at the debt levels and what’s coming up in the future years. There’s a bit of a jump up, but some of that is because of the delayed projects that we haven’t gotten to. So projects that we would have seen debt levels rise this year and last year has been pushed down the road a bit.

And I just wanted to remind everyone, debt is for capital projects and assets. It’s not for operating costs. We can’t borrow money. The Municipal Act and we’re the only level of government that can’t borrow to fund their operations.

We have to have a break even balance. So we’re looking at debt levels. It’s strictly for asset in investment. Any other speakers?

Okay, seeing none, so on the amendment, which is Councillor Stevenson’s addition, we’re gonna vote on that now. Opposing the vote, motion carries 12 to three. Okay, and as amended, willing to move the as amended. Okay, I need a seconder for the as amended.

Councillor Stevenson, go ahead, second the as amended. Okay, any discussion on the as amended motion? Okay, we’re gonna open that for voting. Opposing the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

All right, go ahead, Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m now willing to put 8.36 on the floor. This is the public library appointments of Your Worship to the London Public Library Board.

So I’m willing to put that on the floor. And I’m gonna advise you that I’m going to also, as Chair request the opportunity to ask a couple questions of staff given the communication that was circulated all with Council last night. Okay, well, you can put it on the floor and you can go ahead with your questions if you wanna do that now. Yep, thank you, I’ll start a timer.

So we received a communication that was not submitted in time for the added last night was circulated by one of our city clerks from the Chair of the Library Board. Through you, I wanna ask Ms. Pollett, ‘cause I’m aware that you’ve seen this communication. There are expressions raised that I do not feel are legitimate expressions of interest in terms of fiduciary responsibility.

Through your interpretation, given that the Mayor also sits on a number of other boards, Tourism, which he sits on with Councillor Close and I, do strong Mayor Powers intersect with the fiduciary responsibilities that any member of Council, including the Mayor has when they take a position on a board agency or commission. Ms. Pollett, go ahead. Thank you and through the Chair, all members of Council, whether they are a strong Mayor or a City Councilor have fiduciary duties to boards that they sit on.

And the development of the strong Mayor Powers in the Municipal Act does not affect those duties, those remain. Go ahead, thank you. And so one additional question, is there anything with respect to, so we talk specifically of the strong Mayor Powers, the Board Chair also alludes to a conflict of interest in the communication and that is in their fourth paragraph. Is there, in your opinion, any conflict of interest in having a member of Council feeling this vacancy, given that it’s a Council vacancy, the Mayor is a member of Council.

Go ahead, Ms. Pollett. Thank you and through your worship. No, there is a prior case law that permits Councilors to sit on various boards and it’s not considered a conflict.

Deputy Mayor, thank you. So I’m just gonna wrap up with a couple of comments then. The Board Chair referenced myself in the letter. Yet the Board Chair never bothered to reach out and express any sort of concern that he had with commentary that I offered.

This seems to be a pattern that’s developing. As Councilor Cuddy shared at SPPC, he provided notice that he was going to miss a meeting and the Board Chair didn’t reach out to indicate that that would be the third meeting missed. I think that there is a, and then we have a communication that’s being circulated late yesterday afternoon because it didn’t meet the added agenda. So for me, my decision is not going to be influenced by this communication.

I think that there is actually a communications perhaps issue there that needs to be investigated, but I’m going to stand by what I said at committee. I’m gonna be supporting the Mayor’s appointment. We have a Board that has clearly indicated to us multiple times that they’ve got some capital asset challenges. We’ve got branches with leaky roofs and we’ve got branches that are closed a significant portion of the week.

And the Mayor indicated in his nomination for this position that he’s got some ideas that he wants to bring to the Board that because they’re subject to in-camera positions, he would only be able to bring to the Board if he’s appointed to this role. And so for me, I think the Board should have not requested Councilor Cuddy’s replacement in the first place as he provided notice that he was going to miss a meeting. However, I have to deal with the point of order. Councilor Trossal on a point of order.

The question of Councilor Cuddy’s replacement was clearly not what’s on the table right now. I mean, this is just sort of general background in terms of horrible things that the Board has done, but that’s not what we’re debating and that’s not what’s on the table. So I think we really need to keep this focused on what’s on the agenda today. That’s something we dealt with before.

Yes, so on Councilor Trossal’s request, generally I have a lot to make way because it’s all related to the appointment process, but I do agree with them. I, you know, let’s tighten it up to the matter at hand, which is the committee’s recommendation to appoint myself to the London Public Library Board. I think there’s a lot of context that could be added in on other things, but I think sticking to the tight to that appointment is appropriate. So I’ll ask you to do that and appreciate Councilor Trossal’s interjection.

Go ahead. So I’ll rephrase that slightly then. The item that is on the floor is 4.2 from the committee agenda. The London Public Library Board of Directors Vacancy.

The board chose to take a path of action that created a vacancy that is to be filled by a member of Municipal Council. Municipal Council at the committee made a selection. That is the recommendation that’s on the floor today. And that is the recommendation that I will be supporting.

Okay, thank you, other speakers to this. Councilor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, thank you, your worship. And I would like to follow up on the letter that we received from the London Public Library Board.

And I know at committee, we already had a recommendation. I did put my name forward. I was not supported, but I do think it’s important that I bring forward my name again. I would like to get support to— Okay, sorry, Councilor Hopkins, a point of order.

Go ahead. We are dealing with the committee recommendation to appoint the mayor, not other names coming forward for nomination. Yes, so appreciate the interjection. Councilor Hopkins, you can put your name forward again or members of Council can.

What they would need to do is defeat B in the committee’s recommendation. The appointment of myself, that was the committee’s recommendation. Should that be defeated? Any member of Council could put their name forward.

So certainly there’s a path to what you’d like to do. So what you could do is speak against part B, which is my appointment. And then you would have that avenue to put yourself forward again. So the deputy mayor is technically correct.

You can’t put your name forward now. Certainly, I think we hear that you still have an interest. And so it sounds to me like what you want to do is encourage your colleagues to defeat part B. But go ahead, Councilor.

Thank you, Your Worship, for clearing that up. I was going to say that before I was interrupted, that I would like to bring my name forward. And to do that— Okay, Councilor Hopkins, one second, a point of personal privilege. Go ahead.

When a speaker is speaking and it just happened to me when a Councilor is raising a point of order that is not interrupting, that is raising a point of order. And that’s what’s done. So I would request the Councilor withdraw the comment that I interrupted her. So from the point of personal privilege, the deputy mayor is correct in that it is legitimate under our procedure by-law to interject in the middle of a Councilor’s speech to make a point of order or a point of personal privilege.

As was mentioned, Councilor Trossa did one, Deputy Mayor did one. I will say the word though that Councilor Hopkins used, interruption. It is a permitted interruption to the Councilor speaking. So it technically is an interruption.

So I’m just going to ask, I understand that it may have sounded some way to one person or another, but I’m just going to say that this point of personal privilege is dealt with. Interruptions are allowed. It is an interruption. I think we can proceed with the debate and discussion now.

I’ll go to Councilor Hopkins. Thank you for that. So following up on the letter that we received from the London Library Board, I would like to have my name remain and I would welcome any of the Councillors to bring their name forward too. And to do that, the recommendation from the committee would have to be defeated.

And I’m asking my colleagues to defeat that recommendation. Thank you. Okay, other speakers to this. I have Councillor Perbault, I think next.

Thank you. And after receiving the letter and following up on the agenda that was stopped during the meeting, during the last month. And I was kind of on the fence. And I saw pluses, minuses on both ends, but the computer mayor said one thing that actually made up my mind and I will be supporting the mayor.

And that has to do with the capital projects, capital expenditures. And mayor does have certain ideas. And as we all know, at the board level, they are confidential. And I think it does make sense.

And this is the point that certainly makes my decision supporting the mayor at this board. Thank you. Okay, other speakers to the committee’s report. Councillor Stevenson and then Councillor McCallister.

Thank you. Maybe clarification on that point. Is there no other way for a strong mayor to advance projects without being a member of the board? So I think Ms.

Polit answered some of this question, but I’ll take a shot at a piece of it with the Councillors’ indulgence. The strong air powers do give me some authority over the budget. So I could not include some things that are requested. I could add additional money.

I don’t have the ability in that to force a board in commission to spend it one way or another. There’s some authority and discretion that the boards have as they’re acting in their own fiduciary responsibility. And so the difference between sitting here and sitting there is sitting there and sharing ideas with the London Public Library Board would be shared within the best interest and with the fiduciary responsibility and best interest of the library at the center of that discussion. Managing the budget process here would be with the best interest of the city as a whole as the focus of the discussion.

And so there is a very distinct and different role that is played whether you are on the board or not. I certainly would have the ability to influence to a certain degree, the process in both of those positions, but much more intimately from an operations perspective as a member of the board, sitting with only that hat on, sitting with that fiduciary organization’s responsibility at play and with the ability to engage fully with that board. And it would be the decision of the board to take any sort of considerations or ideas forward, which again is my intent. I actually don’t want to just go and direct things across the city.

I’d rather work with the board intimately with that hat on. Pitch ideas discuss them with that board and see what the collective group would like to see or not. So I hope that kind of answers the question. There is a very distinct difference in being a board member and operating outside of the board.

Thank you, yeah, it helps a little. I mean, I think all of us want what’s best for the city, but it sounds like we need you on every board then to ensure that all opportunities are open across the city. And I just feel that’s probably not in anybody’s best interest. We know you’re busy and everything, but I just feel like there should be another way for us to accomplish big and great things in this city without needing the mayor to be on the board.

Is there a way for us to do it as council, where we are then making suggestions to the board for their consideration that they can do in confidential session? I feel like I’m in an awkward spot here because we’ve got the chair of the board expressing concern. There’s the perception of the public with what’s going on here now. And I’m inclined to switch my vote and not support this and support a counselor being on the board and ask us to find another way as a strong mayor and as a strong council to move forward great projects in the city.

So I don’t know if there’s input that could help me. I’m open to it from the mayor or staff to say, no, this really has to be the way and then do we need policies in the future where there’s an opportunity for the mayor to replace counselors on certain boards to move forward projects in the city? I’m just wondering, is this an isolated case or is this something that we’re gonna get to look for policy change? I don’t know if I can answer all the components of your questions, I’m not even sure as Paul can, but I will hopefully give you something that will add some context.

You’re right, I have limited amount of time and I’m going to decide where I can utilize that time in the best interests of the city as a whole. And in this case, I put my name forward for a specific reason. I’m willing to devote the time to this particular area. I don’t want to sit on every board nor could I, but from time to time, I think that there’s some advantage to me being able to focus some time and attention on different parts of the city.

There may be opportunities and I may end up moving off boards when I think that there’s been a contribution made and that other things can happen. I think you’ve seen colleagues move on and off boards based on their workload and the contributions they’re making. So all I can say to help you with your question is, this is where I’m choosing to devote some time. I think I have something to contribute.

Councillor Hopkins feels the exact same way. I think her application is legitimate as well. And so I’m not sure that’s gonna give you the answer you need, but that’s the context I can give. I don’t think Ms.

Pollot, you would have anything to add based on the Councillor’s question, no, okay. Yeah, okay, so I just acknowledge, I guess, the obvious that we’re in an awkward position when you’ve expressed an interest on being on the board and we’ve now got written communication that I’m not so sure they’re happy with that appointment. And so we’re being asked to do what they don’t want us to do, we’re kind of torn between you and the board. So I guess we should get to decide.

Councillor McAllister. Thank you through the mayor. I just realized actually I’ve wanted library mug. Randomly chose that, no, I would like to comment in terms of the process that we went through a committee.

Obviously, I voted in favor of Councillor Hopkins, saw which way in terms of the committee support. So I wasn’t gonna stall things there, but to keep consistent with my vote, I am going to vote against this. And I do just wanna take this opportunity to reiterate my reasons. First off, thank you to both mayor and Councillor Hopkins for putting their name forward.

From my point of view, the reason why I chose Councillor Hopkins, I do think it puts the mayor actually in a predicament. And for that reason, I think this sets a bit of a dangerous precedent in terms of especially with the strong mayor powers and the mayor having to present a budget, understanding that you do wanna join the board and have input, but I believe you have tools at your disposal for the rest of us don’t. I think it’s important that Councillors sit on the ABCs. I think that input is also invaluable.

I believe Councillor Hopkins has about three libraries or just the one branch, I’m gonna do three branches. Yeah, but anyways, we all have different branches in our area, but I do think it’s important for the positions that typically are for Councillors that we respect that and that we keep the Councillors on the ABCs if available, recognizing that sometimes we have vacancies, people aren’t willing to step forward. And so in those situations, maybe the mayor wants to contemplate sitting on them, but I would say, I think you have a heavy workload as it is, recognizing the input also from the library, but I do think it’s important, especially when vacancies appear that are typically filled by Councillors, that we respect that. We also have to acknowledge in terms of the input of the boards themselves, even though recognizing that we do have these spaces reserved for us.

But saying all that, I just want to say that I just think it sets a dangerous precedent in terms of the mayor sitting on a board like this. We all have assets as being a topic and every board I sit on, I don’t think that’s new for any of us. And so I just think those are the discussions that seem to happen at the board level. I think the mayor has demonstrated in the past that he’s able to have conversations with the board chairs, with the individual ABCs.

I think he has an avenue that the rest of us don’t necessarily have. So for that reason, I’m going to say no to this and support Councillor Hopkins. Thank you. Other speakers, go ahead, Councillor Ferrero.

Thank you, Mayor. So it looks like we’re gonna be maybe just from the comments that I’ve seen around the horse a year, possibly re-voting on the item for SPPC. I’d like to be as efficient as we can with that. But I am hearing just kind of the comments that I heard from my colleagues and I’m hearing the comments from the mayor with the time perspective and you are gonna be putting the time in.

But I also do understand that all of our time and I know that you’re more constricted than we are when it comes to time. And you can’t just, you know, you can’t just make up time with a maybe taking away from your sleep or taking away from other, you know, things that you have on your personal side. So if that’s the case, and I do see that with the letter coming in, which does not really changing my original vote, which I did put my vote towards Councillor Hopkins, if that’s what’s gonna happen and we’re gonna be either voting down or voting up depending on how our votes were at SPPC, then I’m gonna go with my SPPC vote again on this one. And I hope that we can just do that quickly and be, you know, just make sure we have the decorum as we do that too when we have this item get discussed.

So that’s kind of where I’m gonna be. I’m just gonna treat this as my SPPC vote. And however it turns out, I’ll be approving that after that vote. Okay, I put myself on the list.

So I’ll let Councillor Plow’s a chair. I have the chair recognizing Mayor Morgan. Listen, I didn’t want to raise a point of personal privilege before, but I will say, as the treasurer said, there’s absolutely no conflict. I serve on a number of boards.

When I sit on those boards, I have the same expectation of myself as I have each member of this council. You are responsible to the fiduciary responsibility of the board you’re sitting on when you’re sitting as that board. That means in the past, there are members of council who have gone to a board and in a budget process voted to support that board’s budget. And when it came to council, voted to not support all of the components of that board’s budget, you sit with different hats.

It’s a complicated thing to do. Each and every one of us do it who sit on a board. And so I don’t need to be told by any member of council whether I’m capable of doing that or not. I’ve been doing it for a decade on boards as a member of council.

And by the way, I am a member of council. So when you say spots for a counselor, that is also a role that I fulfill. And I sit on a number of boards existing. I can choose to manage my time.

I’m offering this. I also respect if council does not want me to spend their time there. These are appointments we make. We can appoint another council.

You can vote down this motion. I put my name forward to assist in a focused way in this board. I appreciate the committee’s support. But I do not need members of council making decisions about how I manage my time for me.

I also am fully capable, as our solicitor has said, fully capable of fully understanding and managing the fiduciary responsibilities that we have on a board. There is no way that I would go to a board and bring up any sort of strong mayor or budget pressure or something like that. In the context of discussing that board’s budget, I would be discussing that board’s budget within the context of the needs of that particular board. And what is best for that organization and the types of things that they can consider and put forward?

I certainly would bring a lot of knowledge and context about the budget process. But I will operate, should I have this opportunity in the same way that I operate on every single other board? And that is to the benefit of the board, benefit of the organization and the missions of that board. And I’ll come back here and sit in this horseshoe.

And as I expect with each and every one of you, then make decisions in the best interest of the bigger picture, all the boards and all the context of the city. And on libraries, yes, you each have libraries in your area of the city and the ward. I represent the whole city. All the library branches are something that I represent and think about each and every day, having been on that library board for eight years and served as chair for three.

It’s an organization that I care about and I like. I’m willing to vote some time to it. That being said, always fully respect the will and the decision of council through the process. And I take absolutely no offense to the way that people want to vote, but I wanna be clear about my intentions.

And I was not going to speak to this, but I will not sit by and let people assume that there is a conflict when there isn’t and that I’m not fully capable of managing the fiduciary responsibilities of multiple organizations at once because I’ve been doing that for a long time. Thank you, returning the chair to you. And I believe Councilor Trossa might have been interested. Councilor Trossa, go ahead.

Thank you and through the chair. And as the other sitting member of the library board, I feel I should speak. I took part in all of the discussions that the libraries had both in session in camera and in public, we’re gonna be making a lot of really important decisions. And yeah, a lot of them are gonna be in camera.

And the mayor pointed that out on television saying that was the best place to talk about that. There is no claim here that the mayor is not perfectly qualified as a member of council or as a person with great knowledge of LPL, which goes back. I actually like the idea of having somebody with that historical perspective of some of the things that happened at the board back in the aughts. Sometimes I think I’m the only person that goes back that far.

So it might be nice to have somebody else in the room who understands what I’m talking about. But seriously, the mayor is totally qualified to be on the board. There is no actionable under the municipal conflicts of interest act issue here. The Ontario Public Libraries Act is very clear that there’s a limit to how many members can be on a board.

That expresses some legislative intent that they wanna keep sort of a independence of the board. There’s a strong legislative intent that the idea behind the London Public Library Board is to have a separate independent entity. And the mayor does not destroy that by sitting on the board. What I think is challenged by having not Josh Morgan, but a strong mayor under Ontario’s strong mayor legislation such as it is devolved from the province, there is going to be a perception that there is a power imbalance.

And I know as a, I’m very sensitive to that as an elected councillor who was elected prior to strong mayor powers and is now operating under strong mayor powers. And I’m not making any particular criticism of anything this mayor or any other mayor has done. But it does detract. And I think that that also carries over to a board.

And you’ve got a board here that has raised some very serious concerns about how this is going to play out in the board’s dynamic and in the perception that the board has, the perception that the public has of the board. And this is not a criticism of the mayor. I think if the mayor has time and I’m not the mayor, but if I were you, I would be more worried about London transit, I’d be more well, actually I won’t name other agencies. I’d say there are other agencies that I’d be more concerned about.

And I’ve mentioned some of those to you. I think that the London Public Library Board is not a board that is in distress, that has been mismanaging that needs some higher authority to sort of come in and correct it. And I won’t say that about every board. I won’t get into that now ‘cause I’ll be out of order.

However, in my remaining time, I just went to say that this board has functioned particularly well. When you look at the political diversity of who’s sitting on this board, we have operated very well. And I just think having that, I’m not gonna refer to a certain pounded animal coming into the room because that would be disrespectful. So I’ll just say a strong mayor is going to upset this balance that exists on this board and the board doesn’t want it.

And we’ve been very clear about that. And I certainly hope that the mayor does not take this as a personal affront or as an indication that he doesn’t have the ability to provide additional service. And I hope through the mayor, to the mayor, I hope you, I hope you and I want my mug back at the end of the day. I just want you to understand that there’s no personal animosity here.

This is an institutional worry about the relation. And I’m, but you have 30 seconds before I warn you that. Institutional relationship between, I think, a somewhat vulnerable board and the institution of the strong mayor. So I’m gonna ask you to vote no on this.

I’m keeping my vote as it was at the SPPC. One final thing, there is nothing stopping the mayor from having individual sit downs with the chair, with the director or with me about ideas. And we would certainly welcome that, but you don’t have to be a member of the board to do that. The time’s up, Councilor, thanks.

Other members of Council? Go ahead, Councilor Raman. Thank you and through you. So I actually want to focus on part A of what’s before us today.

And that’s the letter that we received in our email inboxes. I’m just, it’s not just to receive. Yes, so just to be clear, part A is the original communication about the Councilor Cudi’s resignation. The additional email that we received was, and not on the ad agenda, it wasn’t received in time, but you can certainly reference it.

Thank you. Okay, so I’ll reference it ‘cause I thought it was part of what we were receiving as well. I’m not comfortable with the letter that was received and I just want some clarification on the letter. So I’m not sure if that’s possible because I know that, and I don’t want to put any individual Councillor on the spot, on the letter, but the letter is signed and referred to as we.

So I assume it’s on behalf of the entire board and not just from the chair. So I assume that a meeting took place in order to have the conversation. I’m wondering if that can be clarified by anyone. I’ll ask the clerk if he can clarify at all.

Thank you, Your Worship. The London Public Library Board is not aboard the city clerk’s office supports. So I don’t have information about any such meeting. Thank you.

So it’s not clear to me then if this is a letter on behalf of the entire board or if it’s the letter from the chair of the board, but I do have some concerns with receiving a letter regarding our process here from a discussion at SPBC that then expresses concern about the process and how we went about that, having that discussion, pertaining to the decision we’re about to make. I think it creates some challenges for us in our own decision making and that’s why we’re having this conversation here today, partially. I also don’t understand if these conversations were public, if they were at a meeting, if they were public or if they were held in camera at other concerns. I think that we have to perhaps look into further.

But I wanna speak specifically to the perception of a power imbalance and that’s mentioned in the letter. I think that that perception from the board chair or the board, I’m not sure which one, could exist because there’s been some conversation. I think that’s dispelled quite quickly if the person that’s assuming the position doesn’t exercise some extraneous power in that relationship. And so I do think it can be managed.

As they’ve said, if the mayor is appointed to the board, they look forward to working with him. I think that, again, sometimes we have to get in a room and have a conversation be part of the table in order to change the relationship and move things forward. For that reason, I’ll support the mayor, as I did previously being on the library board. I saw this as an opportunity with a branch in my ward that’s undergoing a renovation right now that’s faced some challenges in terms of just getting that underway.

And for that reason, residents in my ward are not receiving the same level of service that they would normally be receiving because their library branch is closed. I do wanna see more onus on the table. I do wanna see a counselor there to be able to provide that perspective. And so for that reason, I’ll continue to support the mayor on the board.

Okay. Any other speakers who haven’t spoken yet? Councillor Ploza, go ahead. Thank you.

And was just waiting to hear from colleagues perspectives and had as a past library board member myself. And it was before the mayor’s time on the board. I know he definitely spent a lot of time there as a member of that board and as chair. Concerns with the letter, I don’t know if it means a wider conversation that we need to have to AVCs to remind them that we are fully aware as members of council of our fiduciary responsibility and that when we’re at our designated spots at agency boards and commissions that we’re fully aware that that legal hat we’re wearing in that room is to that best needs of that board, of that organization and what they need.

And then when we come to chambers, we put on our different hat and this is the best needs of the corporation. And we balance those worlds and we’re very legally mindful of what is governing us in those spaces. So I was a little bit shocked that we received such a letter from the look board chair essentially saying not that member of council, not the mayor, pick us a third option. And we’re all members of council.

I know we represent different words ones for the entire city, but we’ve had boards in the past that have come forward and actually said, can the mayor come and serve on this? We have something that we’re looking at doing. It would help us better behind the scenes to manage it and move things forward. That was the tourism London board and that change was made last term of council to have that expertise in the space as they navigate things that do affect city-wide issues.

My vote at SPPC was in support of past LPL board chair returning to that space who’s a serving member of council and will remain so. It is just that there was no letter referenced or no information referenced in the communication from Mr. Gibson saying what the HR needs might be. HR needs might be at that board of expertise that we would have a better insight of what they need.

That wasn’t conveyed. We just know that once we made our selection, they said, no, thank you. Their public agenda shows that they met on February 20th. We had the SPPC discussion on the 25th.

So there perhaps might have been an emergency board meeting called or for a board to have consideration input into this or as Councilor Roman pointed out, it could just be the board chair setting a letter. We just don’t know. So I’m sticking with my original decision and should that fail? Absolutely happy to support Councilor Hopkins.

All right, any other speakers who haven’t spoken yet? Okay, so just so we’re clear, it’s the committee’s recommendation on the floor and there’s two parts. So we can certainly divide it. Actually, you know what, we are just gonna divide it.

The first part is receiving the communication, not the email, the original communication from the London Public Library Board. The second part is about the appointment and the community recommendation to appoint myself. So let’s deal with part A first, which is just receiving the communication from January 24th about the vacancy that was declared. Okay, so I’m just gonna have the, I’m just gonna be moving because you’re already presenting.

Yeah, and I just was clarifying. This is the original letter. This is SPPC. This is the January 24th original letter.

The original letter. The SPPC that everybody supported at SPPC to receive. Okay, so we’ll open that for voting. Wasn’t a vote, motion carries 15-0.

All right, and same mover. Now this is the part where it’s the SPPC’s recommendation to appoint me to the library board. That’s the recommendation. So with that on the floor, we’ll open that for voting.

Wasn’t a vote, motion carries nine to six. Deputy Mayor. Thank you, worship. That concludes the report from SPPC.

If you’ll indulge me for just a moment, I’m gonna advise colleagues that the lighting in here is creating a bit of a challenge for me with the vision issue I’m having right now. So I’m gonna try and remain in chambers and just use sunglasses that may not work. I may have to go upstairs and continue the meeting for my office in the dark. But I’m gonna try sunglasses for now and see if that works and if not, I’ll remove myself to my office.

Okay, yes, take whatever accommodations you need and thank you for letting us know. We’re on to— Mayor, just a point of privilege, I guess. And to give the Deputy Mayor some time to go upstairs. Can I call a five minute bio break before I present?

Oh, yes, anybody can move a break. So you wanna move a break. It’s five minutes, if you don’t mind. Five minutes.

Okay, like sometimes five minutes turns into 15. So you go on 10, take 10, but five. Okay, we’re doing five then. Move by Councillor Ferrara, seconded by Councillor Palosa.

We’ll do this by hand. All in favor of a five minute. Motion carries. All right, thanks, five minutes.

I’ll just get everybody to sit down. Okay, I’m calling this meeting back to order. We’re done the recess and the great news is not only did Councillor Ferrara deliver us a recess, but he gets to deliver us the next report, which is the fourth report of the Community and Protective Services Committee. I’ll turn it over to you.

Thank you, Mayor. Pleasure to give the fourth report on the Community and Protective Services Committee. I have one poll request that’s item 12. So I would be willing, if there’s no other polls, to move the other items one through 11 and 13.

All right, would anybody like anything else aside from 12, dealt with separately? So 12’s pulled, nothing else? Okay, so you’re putting one through 13 with the exception of 12 on the floor? That’s correct.

Okay, any discussion on those items? Go ahead, Councillor Peruzza. Thank you, Councillor Peruzza, to the staff. One of my favorite reports is 72.6 bucks on the creation annual plan.

And I want to thank our staff. I’m always proud of these numbers, because this is the quality of life delivering us to the Londoners. I think we are having, through these initiatives, we are having a healthier community. And again, if I look at the KPIs, levels of satisfactions and highlights, thank you to the entire team.

Thank you very much. Any other speakers to the full set of, the exception of 12 of course, what’s on the floor? Okay, then we’re going to open that for voting. This is one through three.

Councillor? Thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries 15. Go ahead, Chair.

Thank you, Mayor. And that leaves item 12 on the report, the 2.11 adult entertainment, body rub, attendant licensing information report. I’ll put that on the floor. Okay, I’ll look for the speakers for this.

Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you, as circulated, I have an amendment that I’d like to move on to A, that at the end of A be added, and that any further action on this report be suspended until the Supreme Court issues its ruling on Bill C-36 sections. It being noted that sections 286.2 and 286.3 of Bill C-36 may materially impact any changes to municipal bylaws and licensing, and that a Supreme Court decision is expected in 2025. Just one second, Councillor, I just want to be clear.

I think you ended up submitting two motions to the clerks. They weren’t really sure which one you put on. The one you put on is the one that is contrary to what the committee passed, because you’re asking to amend to take no action in when C actually take action. So I think what they also anticipated doing was referring the whole thing for the same reasons, and I’m just trying to get clarification on which one you actually intended to put on the floor, because one is a referral.

We deal with the whole thing later with the language used, but if you’re going to try to amend, I’m going to have to rule that as contrary, because the whole action from committee is about taking action, and so adding a delay from taking further action would be contrary. So you can refer the whole thing until such time as, but you can’t amend it and do that. So I’m only going back to you, because you submitted two things. I just want to be absolutely clear on the difference between— I submitted a few things, so I think the other one was on something else.

I didn’t submit anything specifically on this one, other than my submission, but I’m happy to do a referral until the Supreme Court ruling. Well, maybe you didn’t submit that, but they prepared two things, because I think you expressed your intent, and the clerk’s door is very good about trying to carve out a path for you. Well, thank you for that. Okay, so let me just, I want to make sure that the wording of the referral is something that you’re okay with, because I’m going to read it.

So the staff report dated February 18th, 2025, related to adults’ entertainment, body-robot attendant licensing information report, be referred to civic administration to report back at a future meeting of the community protective service, and after the Supreme Court issues, it’s ruling on Bill C-36 sections, it being noted that sections 280-62, 286-3, of Bill C-36 May material impact any changes to municipal bylaws and licensing, that a Supreme Court decision, and that a Supreme Court decision is expected in 2025. You’re okay with that language? Okay, is there a seconder for that? Councilor Pribble’s willing to second.

Okay, so that referral of what the committee did is on the floor for those reasons. We’ll put that in E-Scribe, and then you can speak to it now if you’d like. I’ll reserve my comments again. Okay, then I’ll look for speakers to the referral.

Councilor Raman, go ahead. Thank you, through you, said referral. Amendable for the reasons provided? Yes, referral is amendable.

Thank you, I’m comfortable with a referral for a number of reasons, but not particularly related to a decision of the Supreme Court, of which I’ve not had any legal perspective provided by our legal counsel. So I’m comfortable with a referral. I would like to hear, I did hear a committee story from a number of organizations through letters, as well as the conversation at that committee around some concerns, specifically from women’s organizations in the city as well, around their involvement in the process so far. So I do think for a number of reasons I’d like to refer it, but not specifically tied to what the Supreme Court decision is.

So I’d like to amend it to remove that reference and just refer it. Give me one second. Councilor, if you can look at the motion on the screen, are you asking to remove from the it being noted on, leaving the stuff before that? ‘Cause it still does, it kind of then would tell staff around when to bring it back.

If you remove too far back to all the references, there’s just no context on when to bring it back. Staff can bring it back at the very next meeting. So I’m wondering where you want the break, ‘cause I can amend it to delete portion of it or I can amend it to change a portion of it, but I guess I just need a little more context on how you want that divided, because I think what we don’t wanna do, if I understand your intent is remove it so far back that staff just bring it back to the next CPSC. Thank you.

I’m trying to find a path. So I’m hoping that the clerks might be able to help me on this so that the referral back to our staff is so that we can be provided legal perspective to begin with, because we’re tying it to a Supreme Court and to bill through C36, and I personally just do not have enough perspective on this to say whether or not we need to be tying the bylaw up around this item. So I just want more clarity. And so if I can tie it to going back to committee so that we can at a future meeting receive legal information on this, I think that that would help from my perspective, that would be very helpful.

I also, like I said, there were a number of other reasons why I would refer it. And I’m happy to have staff provide to us what they believe is the correct timeline. I know they’ve a lot on their plate. I don’t wanna say at the next meeting, I’m happy with a few meetings from now or an next quarter.

I’m not really seeing this as an urgent matter that needs to come back expeditiously. Give me one second. Okay, so here’s what we’re gonna do, and we’ll clean up the language after. The amendment is that the motion be amended to remove the reference and purpose, the referral to the Supreme Court issuing of its ruling on bill C36 sections and requested civic information report back with legal advice with respect to this matter.

And then if that passes, we’ll fix the language so that it basically says that. Yeah, that’s works for, okay. All right, so you can move that amendment ‘cause referrals are amenable for the reasons. It also changes the timeframe, potentially.

I mean, it’s kind of open for staff to be able to bring that back when they can. Look for a seconder for doing that. Councillor Frayer, you’re willing to second. Okay, so now we’re on just Councillor Ramen’s amendment, which will change kind of the reason for the referral and potentially the timeframe, but it’ll be a little open to staff to not reference the Supreme Court, but we’re just gonna get some legal advice, which may include things about legal cases before the Supreme Court and other things, at which point, the council could make a decision about a further referral or not.

That’s what the amendment does. We’re only speaking to the amendment right now. Do you wanna, I just wanna give Councillor Ramen now that she’s got on the floor, any sort of ability to speak to it now, or you wanna wait? Okay, Councillor Troose, I’ll go ahead.

Yes, through the chair, I am, I’m going to oppose this amendment. I’m gonna oppose the referral. Here we are again, doing committee work, and we actually had a very, very detailed and useful discussion at the committee about what the real problem with what was brought forward was. And the problem with what was brought forward and the committee rectified this was that the stakeholders were not properly consulted and that’s been fixed.

And this motion makes it clear part C, civic administration be directed to consult with the stakeholders. I think it would be more appropriate to add a Part D to the underlying motion. We don’t need a referral because we’re not passing this today. We’re not passing any legislation today.

So a referral is redundant. What would make more sense would be just to add a Part D saying it being further noted that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court and the staff is requested to provide information about that to the committee. And I think that would be a cleaner way of doing it. So I’m gonna oppose this.

The other question I have to ask staff is… I know the answer to this, but I have to ask it through the chair. Has the Supreme Court or any other court issued a stay of the enforcement of current municipal regulations pending the determination of this matter by the Supreme Court? Hold on.

Yeah, okay, so I’m gonna allow this question ‘cause it’s kinda related to the timelines which Councilwoman is changing, but I’m gonna suggest that like, let’s keep this pretty tight because we’re on the referral, are the amendment to the referral right now. And I’ll just say to do an addition to the main motion, the referral has to be defeated at some point to do something different, so, but I’ll go to Ms. Polit for the answer. Thank you and through you.

I don’t believe the Supreme Court has issued any stay at this point. Councillor Troasau. Thank you and my understanding is that’s correct. So the current status quo is in effect.

And basically by not taking action on this until there’s a Supreme Court decision is tantamount to us sort of issuing our own preliminary injunction against the regime that courts have had the opportunity to issue a preliminary injunction against and haven’t done so. I don’t wanna get into that level of detail, legalism. I wanna keep this simple. The reason why I wanna keep this simple is we sorted through this for a long time at the committee and we came, we actually reached an accommodation between the staff and the stakeholder groups that was the source of the problem.

And we did that, we did that very well. So I just wanna vote on this motion. I’m gonna oppose these amendments and referrals ‘cause I think it’s appropriate for us to vote yes on the motion that we reported out. And if you wanna add something to that about being noted that there’s a Supreme Court action pending that might affect this and we’ll deal with that if we get the decision, that’s fine.

But I just think we’re adding a lot of unnecessary committee work to what’s a very straightforward matter here right now. So I’m gonna be voting no on this. Thank you. Okay, next speaker.

Sorry, I don’t have anybody on the list who’d like to speak next. I’ll go ahead, Councilor Stevenson. Thank you. I’ll just say I’m gonna support the amendment because it’s kind of a baby step along the direction that I’m looking to go anyway.

So I’m happy to support that. Councilor Ferra on the amendment. Thank you, Mayor. So just to confirm, if we did do this referral, we’re still gonna have the component for the stakeholder part that we added to the committee.

I just wanted to confirm that to whoever could answer that. So we’re on the amendment to the referral. What happens when it’s and the amendment to the referral is referring the whole thing. So nothing happens, everything the committee did, it’s gonna come back to the committee with, if the amendment passes and the referral passes, as was described by the amendment that’s on the floor, which is get some legal advice, you can still do all those things, Council has made no decision on it, it’s just gonna get legal advice first, if the amendment passes and the referral passes.

But we’re on the amendment, so if you keep your debate to the amendment, that’d be great. Okay, I’m gonna try my best. Thanks, Mayor. Okay, so I’m gonna support this referral.

We did have that conversation at committee, but we didn’t have some of the information that I saw on this agenda that was submitted by the agencies. I do see that the agencies, and this is why I’m supporting the referral, ‘cause the agencies, we’re making note, I forget which one it was, but there is a lot of onus being put on workers, rather than the operators for the licensing regime itself. So I do see that as a conflict of the way I’d like to see things go. So that’s why I would be going with the referral portion itself at this moment.

And we did see those notes come in onto this Council agenda before we saw for the CAHPS report. So I’m supported this referral, and I guess I’ll keep my comments there for now. Okay, okay, thanks, one sec. All right, other speakers.

Sorry, Councilor Plaza, did you have your hand up? Or no, this is on the amendment, okay. Anybody else on Councilor Omman’s amendment? You still talk on the other things.

Okay, let’s vote on the amendment then. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 11 to four. Okay, now on the as amended motion, Councilor Stevenson are you still willing to move the as amended version? And maybe Councilor Omman will be in a second?

Okay, we’ve got to move on a seconder. On the as amended motion, it’s as amended, new speakers list, so I’ll look to go ahead, Councilor Plaza. Thank you, I held tight for efficiencies. So my question through you to staff, looking to understand that if we refer it back to staff for them to come back at a future meeting, what are we looking for them to come back with that’s different than the original committee discussion?

Lots of discussion was had at committee, staff said that we would be expecting this back. Hopefully in Q3 2025 was their timeline, and it included next steps as per the report of a municipal scan, research and partner agency consultation, licensing, consultation, draft regulations and potential bylaws. So looking to see if we’re just refer it back, if any of this work would move forward as partner agencies are looking to be consulted or we just pause everything, what would staff’s process be? So I’m not going to, I’m gonna go to staff on this because the way that the way that the motion is worded, it’s basically a question on how you operationalize that.

So go ahead, Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, so it was always the intention that as we move forward that we would be engaging with all of the pertinent communities and ensuring that we have that feedback and as we move forward. So if this is passed as read there, we’d be looking for a report that comes back from that highlights some of those legal implications and gives some more feedback from that respect.

And then we would, from thereafter, we have some council confirmation on how they would like us to proceed, then we would start that engagement as well, so it was always a significant part of the work to be able to have that engagement piece. Okay, thank you for that. My understanding is those are sounding very similar of what would be done in this referral process coming up to year’s end. I think I could be fine either way.

‘Cause for me, it was the big part to make sure that the partner agencies who do this work in the city was consulted, which I did have a phone call with them or at least one of them recognizing from their letter state, I’m confused and disappointed why a recommendation report would go to this committee without first consulting with ANOVA and our partners in this important work. And I’d explain to another service provider that it was to get council direction of if we’re interested in investing time and resources and looking at this problem. I said that the report also notes that this bylaw and requirements also already in effect in other Ontario municipalities for licensing body rub parlors. And I said, I believe part of staff’s work would be to reaching out to other partner agencies in the municipal scan and being like, did it work?

Did it have an effect? Is it doing what you want? I said, which also give them an opportunity to reach out to their partner agencies to have a conversation. So I really am fine ‘cause it sounds like referral or not staff’s still gonna do the work as laid out in the report and it’s still not gonna come back until late fall at the earliest.

I don’t think that’s exactly what Mr. Mather said. Am I misunderstanding? I’m good either way, just to understand.

Let me put a piece in the middle and then Mr. Mather can correct. What we’re doing now is all the directions the committee suggested, including the engagement piece, that’s on hold because we’re going to have our solicitor come back and give us some legal advice with respect to the matter. We will receive a report I expect probably in camera at which point we will have received the legal advice and then we could say, all right, let’s take these next steps.

That might be the next meeting or the meeting after. So essentially before any of that consultation piece happens, before we authorize any of that consultation piece which we’ve not authorized yet, we’re gonna get some legal advice first and then we can decide what next step to take. Okay, a question through you to legal then to me and well, how long that legal advice may take to get back at many? It’s a great question, go ahead.

Thank you and through you. I would actually suggest that we wait until the Supreme Court decision because that will inform the legal advice. I don’t have a timeframe. They’ve heard the appeal.

It could be several months before they issued their decision, but I think it would be some welcome guidance to wait until the Supreme Court weighs in on the issue. Okay, go ahead. Thank you for that and not in camera. So just as we do that then, just realizing that the Supreme Court is potentially sometime in 2025, maybe 2026, realizing 2026 is an election year.

And depending on what kind of community conversations we might wanna have, depending on how much you value this work when you have that conversation, each counselor will have to decide if you wanna refer it or just move forward with community consultation of partners who are waiting to be part of the conversation now. Okay, other speakers to the referral, which has been amended. Yeah, it’s amended. Go ahead, Councilor McAllister.

Thank you and through the mayor, recognizing Councilor Dreso and I had very lengthy debate at committee about this. I really think it kind of comes down to whether you wanna move forward or if you want more information. But really, I just think at the end of the day, we kind of have to all make our decisions on this one. From the information I got at committee, I think staff are gonna do those engagements.

They’re gonna have a public participation meeting. And personally, I just wanna move forward with this. If we get to the end of the process and I don’t like the result, I’m also perfectly capable of voting against it and nothing happening anyways. I know it sounds like a lot of work to do nothing, but I think we have to kind of follow through the process.

And I understand where everyone’s coming from in terms of wanting the Supreme Court ruling, but I also think we have the ability to do the engagement. Even if the Supreme Court makes ruling, obviously the legal stuff is outside of our control, but I’m interested to have the engagement component here from our partner organizations allow the public to weigh in. ‘Cause for me, that is a big determining factor in how we make decisions. So I’m comfortable with what we were able to hash out at committee, but again, up to everyone in terms of how they’d like to proceed.

You haven’t spoken because we’re on the as amended referral. So who would like to be on the list? Councillor Ferrera, go ahead. Through you.

  • Okay. So I would say, I guess in comments to the last comments, even though if we do nothing, that’s still a decision. We’re just informing our vote. So I hear what you’re saying and I would probably be in the same vote as you.

For this motion or for this amendment part of the motion with respect to the legal advice to the matter, I would be interested in kind of hearing just kind of the intersection between the municipal purview with the licensing regime and the federal area considering with the C-36, ‘cause I do know that C-36 right now criminalizes most of the activities that we would see around certain facilities that are within this report. But that is not really within our purview because we’re talking about the licensing component, the licensing regime when it comes to health and safety for workers there. So I would be interested in seeing that kind of expressed out and just to see how they intersect and just so we can get that type of legal advice and that analysis there. So that’s why I would be supporting this motion as it is because it is saying, you know, when it comes to with respect to the legal advice, I do see that that would be included on the report.

So that’s why I would be supporting the motion as it is right now. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And, you know, I appreciate the Councillor’s amendment.

I didn’t support it though. I have concerns that we are now sending a message, take no action, and I really think this process has to unfold and I do appreciate the comment that if this does fail, bringing forward the motion from committee and adding a D-Class to take a look at this Supreme Court issue and information coming back to us. I’m really very uncomfortable with the message that we as a city are giving the public here in this process. This is a process that we’ve undertaken numerous times during my time on council.

And I have grave reservations that we are giving a signal that we just want to put it on hold and not continue the process. So, I won’t be supporting this and hope that we get the original motion brought back with an additional amendment. Other speakers, go ahead, Councillor Trostahl. Thank you, and through the chair, without repeating too much of what I’ve already said, my main concern, and I want to do this as soon as possible, is to get the stakeholder groups in here and talk to us about what their concerns and needs are.

That’s my motivation here. And I don’t care how we get there. I don’t care how we get there. But I just feel as if we’re going through a lot of procedural issues undoing some really good work that was done at the committee.

Why do we go to committees? Can we just not go to committees and do what it counts? I’ll withdraw that. I’ll withdraw that.

  • Thank you. So, I’m going to vote against this amendment. I think the intention of the committee is really clear. First and foremost, our concern are the stakeholder groups and what their opinions are.

And I do not want to put their opinion off. We don’t know what the Supreme Court’s going to say. And until the Supreme Court says what the Supreme Court says, it’s not the law. And I still want to hear what these stakeholder groups have to say.

Because who knows what the Supreme Court’s going to say? They may leave the municipalities with some discretion. And you know, I don’t want to have to come back during the election year and have another discussion about why it’s really important to hear what I know of… And I just want to hear what the stakeholders have to say.

I think I’m just repeating myself too much. So rather than run down my five minutes, I think I’ll sit down. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor.

I’ll go to Councillor Stevenson next. Well, thank you. I just heard something there and I’d maybe like clarification. Until the Supreme Court rules, the law is the law, correct?

It’s not the law. It is the law until the Supreme Court says differently. I just want to be sure I’m correct on that. Good.

Yes, that’s correct. Okay, thank you. So limited understanding of this is there’s very polarized views on this topic. But the law is the law until it changes.

So, and again, my limited understanding of this is as a municipality, we must uphold the current laws until they’re changed. And so, I think it’s really, really important, despite what other cities may or may not have done and the timing of it and all that kind of thing, to be sure that before we venture into this area, we get some legal advice on it. And before we start, nothing’s stopping us from engaging with the stakeholders right now. All of us could talk to them and get their views and do all of that.

We don’t need this to pass in order to start that engagement. Now some of them, so I’m going to support this referral because I think that we need to be very, very sure that we’re on solid ground before we move forward. And that’s all I want to do is get that okay. And then, you know, as per the committee, we can move forward.

Other speakers who haven’t spoken yet. So, we’re now voting on the referral, which was amended. So what happens if we pass this is it’s going to come back to a future community protective services committee with legal advice, respect to this matter? Everything the committee did is attached to that and can be decided upon after that advice is received.

That’s what we’re voting on. Okay, we’re going to open that for voting. Was in the vote motion carries 11 to four. Okay, so that item is referred back to the chair or anything else that’s left.

Thank you, Mayor. That was the motion as amended, the final motion. That’s it, it’s referred. So we’re done.

I think actually your committee report is done too. It is, it is, okay. I was going to make some more comments on it, but I guess I miss. The media, the media is in the back row and you can comment all you like after the meeting.

But for now we’re moving on to the next report. So thanks for presenting this. Thank you. Great.

Now we’re on to the first report of audit committee. I’ll just go to Councillor Palosa. Thank you. This is the first report of the audit committee.

I’ve only been given notice to pull one thing being item five, being 4.3, the London housing development projects lessons learned review by MNP. Okay, anything else separate aside from that one? Okay, go ahead. Thank you, another excellent audit committee meeting.

Yes, I am partial. Wide conversations and reviews, audit plans, reports. I know the next meeting is going to be equally as robust. So mark your calendars and plan on coming out.

And I would note that the Councillor Stevenson will have something prepared already for the next one. So that’s my comments on the main items. Okay, so the chair has put one through four and six through nine on the floor. Anybody else want to comment on those?

Go ahead Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. Yes, they have been robust meetings and I’ve been enjoying them. There is one issue that I keep raising at the last few audit meetings and that is around the scope of these management audits and what role the audit committee plays in approving the scope.

Because again, the topic is fine. We do approve those. These are going to be the topics of the audits, but the scope is the differentiator. Like it makes the difference of what the results we get from it.

And in this particular, in the same audit report, we received an update on the scope of the Safe London for Women and Girls. At the same time as in the one that is being dealt with separately, the London Housing Development Projects, we were able to see that we had built an affordable housing unit and placed into it 100% vulnerable people. Go ahead on a point of order. I recognize the Councillors talking to the Safe London for Women and Girls, which was in an over-briefing note, which will be actually discussed in the next audit meeting, but also tying in reference to item 4.3, which has been pulled.

So just a fine line on that one. I’ll stick to three, which is 4.1, the briefing note from the internal eye. So yes, point of order, got it. Gonna stick to 4.3.

We’re good to go, keep going. The point I raised about that briefing note was in the same report, we had an issue that appeared to be an issue for Safe London Women and Girls, that we had a tendency profile that was placing women and children fleeing domestic violence into a building that was 100% vulnerable people that has had significant problems for the last two years. So my point being is there’s something being discussed at audit around the scope and what role the audit committee and council should play in the choosing or approving of the scope of the audits, and also, and that’s mainly my main point. So if that interests you at all, there’ll be an April audit committee meeting and we’ll be having a conversation about that.

Spring and audit committee, they go together really well. Okay, that’s great. Any other speakers to the general motion one through four, six through nine, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Councilor Van Meerberg, in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Chair Palose, I go ahead. Thank you, I put I am 4.3 on the floor as forwarded by committee, recognizing Councillor Stevenson has something for it. Excellent, that’s on the floor. Councillor Stevenson, go ahead.

Thank you, colleagues. Last one of these amendments that I’m bringing forward. This one, again, just adds to it that says that the communication dated January 29th, 2025 from MNP with respect to the London housing development projects, lessons learned review. Be referred to the next meeting of the governance working group to review and consider any policy change recommendations regarding the implementation of affordable housing that utilizes multiple levels of funding.

This will be added to the receipt of the report. Point of order, or just for clarification, the Councilor’s using referral, but we’re really looking to receive the report and then forward it as well to GWG. We’re not referring to deferring the work. So just— We’re just making sure the language says that.

That’s what I heard is the intent despite the language. So yes, ‘cause the report is done, it can be received, but it also forwarded for some action. Yeah, that’s the wording we’ve got, received and referred. So is there a seconder for that?

Yes, go ahead, Deputy Mayor. Discussion on the referral, which the language will be up on the screen in just a moment. Okay, anyone else? Go ahead, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Your Worship. So I think the GWG group is fun too. I may be biased, chairing that group, but I think that this is absolutely something that could be forwarded there for some discussion and review of some of our current policies report and now I will put my LMCH hat on for a moment. The difference in terms of how 122 baseline came to be versus how we took lessons from that and they were implemented on Sylvan Street night and day in terms of the success of those two buildings.

One has been a challenge. One has been running very, very smoothly. But I think from those lessons, we can take a look at our own policies as they relate to the city because of course, 122 baseline, both properties actually, had funding involvement from both levels of government as well as criteria imposed by both levels of government. And I think that it is worthy of a discussion ourselves as to whether we want to provide some policy direction to staff around how we engage when those multi-level funding opportunities come forward because sometimes the criteria that is being directed by a senior level of government may not actually align properly with the goals in our strategic plan or the goals in some of our planning initiatives, some of our affordable housing initiatives as we’ve seen with how the tenant placement at baseline rolled out versus how it rolled out later at Sylvan Street.

So I think this is worthy of going to governance working group and having our committee clerk pull together the current policies and giving them a look over and seeing if there’s anything that we want to bring back to the committee in the future to consider change. Okay, I’ve got others who want to speak. So Councillor Troasau and then Councillor Hopkins. That makes a lot of sense.

My only question is why would that not go to, this is for the clerk, I guess, through the chair, why would that not go to CAPS or SPPC? Why would that go to governance? It sounds like we’re making substantive rules. And I’m not saying I’m opposed to that, but is this the right place for it?

So I will answer that. The reason why I can go to GWG is council can send anything to GWG and in the duties of GWG there’s a line that says, and to meet as needed as a needed basis to consider specific matters before them to municipal council. So it’s been given a very broad mandate as a discussion group to clear the runway for some discussion without all the procedural rules of a standing committee. We can send things there.

They can come back out through a committee process for decision-making, but we can basically send anything there that we want, broad-based discussion without the as restrictive rules of order to do so with. So it’s perfectly allowed. Thank you. Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, happy to support this motion going forward to governance working group. And as we know, governance working group always reports to SPPC for further conversations as well. Looking forward to receiving the calendar for the governance working group as well, since I’m not sure if we’ve got any dates planned for this year. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, and given that 122 baselines in my ward, I’m happy to have this discussion. And I sit on governance working groups, that’s kind of nice and convenient. I am wondering if it’s possible to have that meeting then televised just because I do have a lot of residents who are following this quite closely and they’d be interested in any policy decisions that we might change.

Given the technology restrictions, what we’ve done in the past is we can post the recording so people could listen to the meeting, televising it a little tricky given the way that the working group is structured, but the meetings are recorded, we can post it, people could listen in afterwards. You could share that out all you like. Thank you. Councillor Stevenson, go ahead.

Yeah, thank you, colleagues. I’ll just quickly say then, thank you in advance for your support on this. It’s really about leaning as many learnings as we can into policy changes to support us in the future as we do a lot more affordable housing and supportive type housing in the city. Councillor Ploza.

Thank you. And just wanted to highlight this report as much as it is a scope in an audit coming back to us. It really does exemplify and highlights the lessons that we already learned and took in on our own that wasn’t identified by an external stakeholder in this case. Council of prior council to already made the change in report that you’ll see that highlights HDC and the changes that we made there.

And then highlights financial considerations of when you do have certain mixes of uses in a building of residence, the need to make sure that the capital plan for fixing things that get worn out quickly ‘cause the building is inherently having different needs is also highlighted with the report to make sure those reserve funds are robust. And then highlighting, as we’ve already seen the difference between the two buildings, as Deputy Mayor Lewis has already highlighted, lessons learned as we’ve gone through. So an excellent report and just want to highlight too that it’s work that staff put into it that was acknowledged by the outside partners for the changes that we already made. Anyone else?

All right, seeing none, then we have the motion as set to be received and then referred. I’ll open that for voting. Was in the vote motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you and that concludes the audit committee report.

Okay, thank you. Next, we have an additional report from ICSC. This was the meeting yesterday. Go to Councilor Raman.

Thank you and through you. So I will look to put item 2.2 on the floor first, the public sector salary disclosure act report for the calendar year 2024. And I have a pre-emendment sheet that was provided for 2.1, that’s why I’ll separate them. Okay, so just the one piece on the floor, any discussion on that one piece?

All right, we’ll vote on that. We’ll open that for voting. Was in the vote motion carries 15 to zero. Go ahead, Councilor.

Thank you. I’ll look to put item 2.1 on the floor and an amendment sheet was circulated to everyone with just an update to the remuneration and expense for elected appointed officials and that’s specific to the rationale around the Middlesex London Paramedic Service Authority Board correcting their expenses. Okay, so you put the original on the floor and you’ve put the amendment on the floor but I need a seconder for the amendment. I have a seconder and Councillor Cuddy.

Any discussion on just, there’s any discussion on the amendment? Okay, we’re gonna open that for voting as soon as it’s ready. So this as long as it says motion amended to read. So this will be the new motion leads.

Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you, that concludes my report. Well, actually you’re gonna move the as amended motion. I’m reading the added as amended motion.

I need a seconder for the as amended motion. Councillor Cuddy, any discussion on the as amended motion then we’ll open that for voting. Councillor, further aye. Thank you, closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Thank you. Okay, we’re on to added reports. Okay, Councillor Layman, I think you just have a progress to report. Thank you, I’m gonna report out of our closed session.

Progress was made with respect to items 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 as noted on the public agenda. 6.1/4/ICSC6/ or 6.1/4/CPSC, and 6.1/3/SPPC. All right, that’s just progress. We don’t have to vote on it.

Deferred matters, we have none, inquiries. Any inquiries? Councillor Vameer, I can go ahead. Commissioner, as we know, very serious economic warfare has been launched against Canada today and by extension London, Ontario.

I’d like to inquire of the mayor, if he could perhaps recap the measures and initiatives that London is taking, the city of London, to mitigate the situation and indeed come back to the degree possible that we can, as well as any new initiatives that may have come up since the last report we had. Thank you. I’m gonna turn over the Chair to answer an inquiry. I’ll turn it over to Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you. I have the Chair and recognize Mayor Morgan. Well, thank you for the question. I’m happy to respond.

First off, I will be very clear. This is a really critical time for our city and our country. Like this is essentially the declaration of a trade war against Canada, which includes London, Ontario, and we will be absolutely impacted by it. A recap of the actions that we have taken and will continue to take.

I’m happy to provide that as brief as I possibly can. So the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Association of Municipalities of Ontario, Big City Mayor’s Caucus, the Ontario Big City Mayor’s Caucus all have active and coordinated engagements with each other, including working with the premiers directly and the federal government to create essentially a team Canada coordinated approach to both dealing with the tariff impacts, as well as engagement on the counter tariffs that Canada would put in place. This is included a number of items, including direct engagements with US congressmen senators, the White House, the US Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the Association of Counties in the US. I personally traveled to Washington with the premiers and representatives from FCM and engaged with all of those groups.

I’ll tell you, the US Conference of Mayors came up with a very clear statement in support of their engagements with us to say, they don’t think this is a good idea. If they’re asking the president to reconsider, multiple congressmen of all political stripes have said the same as have senators. This is not a fight with Americans. This is a fight with an American administration under President Trump.

In fact, my engagement with Americans, much like the premiers, has been exceptionally positive on the relationship and the trade relationship between Canada and the US. They’re going to be hurt as much as we are in this. So President Trump has now instituted tariffs and Canada has responded with the first set of tariffs. We have engaged with the prime minister as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities on those counter tariffs.

And the first set of $30 billion of counter tariffs are meant to be on goods that there are reasonable alternatives to so that Canadian firms and businesses are not stuck with nowhere to go for alternatives. Second round of tariffs that will come in should this proceed will be more challenging and difficult. But one of the engagements we continue to have is with the federal government to ensure that if counter tariffs are coming, that we try to minimize the impacts on Canadian businesses. In other words, it does not make a lot of sense to tariff something that we have to go and buy from the US anyways, because we’re simply just charging our own municipalities, our own businesses, our own consumers more.

That has been a consistent viewpoint of the mayors and that has been a message that has been well received and well heard. What we’re doing locally, I did have a meeting of economic development agencies, major procures and representatives from significant industries come together after I traveled to Washington. And we met and we discussed some high level impacts that they were feeling. This is before the tariffs came into play.

It is my intention to announce later this week essentially an economic task force group that will include a rapid reaction group of key players within the city, the purpose of which is to take quick and immediate action to flow information very quickly to our federal and provincial partners so that as we are gathering information on the ground and as things change quickly, we can react very quickly. Obviously, we will do much wider engagement and each and every member of council has a really important role to play in the engagement here. We are all talking to our residents, we’re all talking to our businesses, and we need to know the on-the-ground impacts of how this is happening. We also need to know information about the non-starter counter tariffs that will impact our businesses negatively.

We cannot control the way Americans are terrifying us, but we can try to influence the Canadian counter tariffs to ensure that we try to minimize the impact. ‘Cause remember, an American tariff on Canadian goods is a tax on Americans, a counter tariff is a tax on Canadians, the purpose of which is to shift the supply chain to alternatives to impact American businesses and essentially try to get a change in the administration’s approach. The optimism I have in this is I have never seen levels of government, businesses, not for profits as coordinated and as aligned in our common defense as this has been. I got to go to a reception in Washington that all of the premiers attended.

I mean, meeting one premier or two on the same day is interesting, meeting them all, and all of them relatively unified in the approach. Says something about the way that Canada has come together in this, and so there is this resilience that we have created. The ability to respond quickly has been developed, and we have not wasted the last few weeks doing nothing. I announced a couple of things that the Economic Development Corporation and Small Business Center were doing to bolster programs that we know will support local suppliers and local supply chains.

Those announcements will continue to happen as we receive more information and as we continue to organize. The other critical piece of this too is we will go to our provincial and federal partners for any sort of stimulus or government support to ensure that areas where we do not have a choice, we will ask for businesses to be sure it up. We want municipalities to be sure it up for goods that we are forced to buy where I know I’m getting the wrap up. Goods that we are forced to buy that will impact our capital plan.

The one thing that we’ve been very clear about as public sector institutions and local governments, financial governments and federal governments is we are taking actions like building roads and sewers and housing that is an important injection into the local economy. If costs go up, we cannot pull back on that, but we will need support from the provincial federal governments to ensure that we can afford it and we’re not just shifting an incredible burden on the taxpayers in a different way. So we are actively engaging on those pieces as well. I’ll wrap it up with that.

I will say there will be much more to talk about in the days that come, but we will, we will position ourselves to act quickly, rapidly and decisively in an alignment with all levels of government on this. Thank you Mayor Morgan and I will return the chair to you. All right, I’m gonna deem that inquiry answered and thanks for the extra time. Any other inquiries?

Okay, emergent motions, there are none. We’re on to bylaws. So the only bylaws I have separated this time are Councilor McAllister’s conflict. Would anybody like anything else separated out?

Any other bylaw? So we’re gonna do everything except Councilor McAllister’s conflicts first. So everything except that. I’m gonna use the same mover and seconder.

So I’ll use Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councillor Cuddy for all of the bylaws with the exception of the two, just the one related to Councilor McAllister’s conflict. Okay, all right, we’re gonna open first reading for voting. Everything but Councilor McAllister. Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero.

All right, second reading, same mover and seconder. Any discussion on second reading? All of the bylaws with the exception of one. Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. And third reading, same mover and seconder. No debate on third reading, so we’ll open that for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to zero.

So this is bill 100. This is the item that Councilor McAllister had a conflict on. I’ll need a mover and a seconder for this item. Councilor Hillier and Councillor Frank.

Was that a stretch or it’s a second now, so we’ll use you for all three readings. I will open that for voting on first reading. Closing the vote, motion carries 30 to zero with one recusal. All right, and same mover and seconder for second reading.

We’ll open second reading for voting. Oh, any debate on second reading for voting? Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero with one recusal. And third reading, same mover and seconder.

We’ll open third reading for voting. And carries 13 to zero with one recusal. Okay, that concludes the bylaws. That means all we need is a motion to adjourn.

I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for that. I see Councillor Hopkins and Councillor Hillier. All those in favor of adjournment by hand? Motion carries.

Okay, we’re adjourned. Thank you for your time today.