March 25, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:01 PM; it being noted that Councillor E. Peloza was in remote attendance at 9:16 PM.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Consent Items 2.1 to 2.6 BE APPROVED, with the exception of item 2.2.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

2.1   2nd Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee

2025-03-25 Submission - ITCAC Report

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the 2nd Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on February 19, 2025, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.3   2023-2027 Strategic Advocacy Framework - Annual Report

2025-03-25 Staff Report - 2023-2027 Strategic Advocacy Framework

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the 2023-2027 Strategic Advocacy Framework – Annual Report BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.4   Downtown Master Plan: Quick-Start Actions

2025-03-25 Staff Report - Downtown Master Plan-Quick Start Actions

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following actions be taken with respect to Downtown Master Plan quick start actions:

a)    the Downtown Quick-Start Actions highlighted in the report BE ENDORSED and implemented immediately;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to implement 1-hour free parking in Municipal Lots #1 and #2 in Old East Village, and 1-hour free on street parking in the Core Area through the parking services HONK app, effective April 1,2025, ending October 31, 2025;

c)    the funding for the programs included in b) above, in the estimated amount of $181,875, BE APPROVED from the Economic Development Reserve Fund; it being noted that on May 15, 2024, Council approved $330,000 from the Economic Development Reserve Fund for the same parking programs, but the funding was not fully utilized when the programs ended in 2024, and $181,875 was returned to the reserve fund; and

d)    the staff report BE RECEIVED for information;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated March 22, 2025 from C. Watson, W. Thomas, D. Brown, Coordinators, Midtown Community Organization with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

2.5   Downtown Master Plan: Appointment of Consultant for RFP 2025-001

2025-03-25 Staff Report - (2.5) Downtown Master Plan-Appointment of Consultant

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following actions be taken with respect to the appointment of a consultant for the development of the Downtown Master Plan:

a)    the Canadian Urban Institute, BE APPOINTED as the Consultant to undertake the development of the Downtown Master Plan, in the amount of $415,000.00 (excluding HST), in accordance with section 15.2 of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the funding for this assignment BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report as appended to the staff report dated March 25, 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 approvals given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the consultant for the work; and

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

Motion Passed

2.6   London Hydro Board of Directors Replacement

2025-03-25 Submission - London Hydro

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the following actions be taken with respect London Hydro Board of Directors Replacement:

a)      the communication dated March 3, 2025 from A. Hrymak, Vice Chair, London Hydro Board of Directors BE RECEIVED;

b)      the resignation of C. Graham, Chair, London Hydro Board of Directors BE ACCEPTED; and

c)      the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to continue the recruitment process.

Motion Passed

2.2   Secondary School Transit Pass Pilot Program Update

2025-03-25 Staff Report - Secondary School Transit Pass

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Secondary School Transit Pass Pilot Update:

a)         the report dated March 25, 2025 BE RECEIVED;

b)         Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue the conversation with the London Transit Commission and Thames Valley District School Board representatives and report back to a future meeting of Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, with a specific focus on addressing concerns expressed around metrics for success that include the following:

i) metrics for the Thames Valley District School Board, including:

A.    Student surveys – capturing direct feedback on their transit experience, outlined in Appendix B, as appended to the report;

B.    Attendance data – is the applicable grade(s) experiencing increase in student attendance compared to prior years;

C.    Student achievement data – are the applicable grades showing increased academic achievement result;

D.    Experiential data – including increased ability to match co-op placements, increased student participation in extracurricular school activities, and any use of transit for class trips;

ii) metrics for the London Transit Commission, including:

A.    Increased ridership – tracking how student usage materializes, grows, or does not over time;

B.    Trip patterns – showing when students board and clustered travel times based on card use, outlined in Appendix B, as appended to the report;

it being noted that Civic Administration has completed a significant portion of an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) framework.

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   Integrity Commissioner’s Annual Report - Resubmitted

2025-03-25 Submission - Integrity Commissioner

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

a) the Integrity Commissioner’s Annual Report BE RECEIVED;

b) the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to provide Principles Integrity with 30 days’ notice in writing of termination of their services pursuant to the agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Principles Integrity;

c) in accordance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to proceed with the recruitment of an Integrity Commissioner to provide the functions and responsibilities as prescribed in the Municipal Act, 2001 and report back to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee; and

d) the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to arrange for interim provision of Integrity Commissioner services from another municipality, as required by Section 223.3(1.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, until a Commissioner is appointed;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a memo dated March 25, 2025 from the City Clerk with respect to costs of services; a communication dated March 21, 2025 from Deputy Mayor/Councillor S. Lewis and Councillor P. Van Meerbergen; and a communication dated March 23, 2025 from Councillor S. Stevenson with respect to this matter.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That part b) be approved:

b) the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to provide Principles Integrity with 30 days’ notice in writing of termination of their services pursuant to the agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Principles Integrity;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a memo dated March 25, 2025 from the City Clerk with respect to costs of services; a communication dated March 21, 2025 from Deputy Mayor/Councillor S. Lewis and Councillor P. Van Meerbergen; and a communication dated March 23, 2025 from Councillor S. Stevenson with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That part a) be approved:

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

a) the Integrity Commissioner’s Annual Report BE RECEIVED;

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That parts c) and d) be approved:

c) in accordance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to proceed with the recruitment of an Integrity Commissioner to provide the functions and responsibilities as prescribed in the Municipal Act, 2001 and report back to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee; and

d) the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to arrange for interim provision of Integrity Commissioner services from another municipality, as required by Section 223.3(1.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, until a Commissioner is appointed;

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Mobility Master Plan Mobility Networks Maps

2025-03-25 Staff Report - Mobility Master Plan Mobility

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken regarding the Mobility Master Plan Network Map infrastructure recommendations, as appended to the staff report dated March 25, 2025, as Appendix “A”:

a)    the Roads Projects maps BE APPROVED; with the following amendment to the Roads Projects Timeline;

i) expansion of Bradley Ave from Wellington Road to Highbury Avenue BE INCLUDED in the next improvement cycle.

b)    the Transit Priority Network maps BE APPROVED;

c)    the Cycling Network maps BE APPROVED, except:

i) the following Proposed Network Additions BE REMOVED from the Network Cycling maps:

A. Royal Crescent east of Clarke Road to Wexford Avenue to Admiral Drive;

B. Sovereign Road;

C. Vancouver Street from Trafalgar Street to Wavell Street;

ii) the following Proposed Network Additions: Huron Street, Taylor Street, McNay Street and Gammage Street to BE REMOVED from the Cycling Network maps;

iii) the Windermere Road to Gainsborough Road Active Transportation Connection BE REMOVED from the Cycling Network maps;

d)    the Sidewalk Gaps on Major Roads maps BE APPROVED;

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to re-start the Discover Wonderland Road Environmental Assessment, with expanded limits from Southdale Road to Fanshawe Park Road, in order to construct six general purpose, through lanes along the corridor with a long-term build-and-convert option to Bus Rapid Transit and to modify the MMP maps accordingly and that the estimated cost of the six general purpose lane widening be used in the creation and prioritization of projects in the 2028 Development Charges Background Study;

f)    the Mayor and Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to engage in discussions with neighbouring municipalities and the Province to work collaboratively on a ring road and integrated transportation network that would help move people, goods and services within and across the region; and

g)    the communication from D. R. Schmidt, Development Manager, Corlon Properties Inc./Sunningdale Golf & Country Club Ltd. BE REFERRED to a future meeting of Planning and Environment Committee;

it being noted that the maps will form part of the Mobility Master Plan final report;

it being further noted that the maps will inform the creation of the 2028 Development Charges Background Study currently underway and budgeting processes may influence project prioritization;

it being pointed out that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received and heard a presentation from staff with respect to this matter;

it being further pointed out that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard delegations from M. Wallace, M. Hymowitz and Z. Kinias and received the following communications:

  • M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute;

  • M. Hymowitz;

  • L. Kari & Family;

  • D. R. Schmidt, Development Manager, Corlon Properties Inc./Sunningdale Golf & Country Club Ltd.;

  • Councillors C. Rahman and S. Lehman;

  • Deputy Mayor/Councillor S. Lewis;

  • T. D. Jones, Executive Vice President, GLS Metals Group;

  • Z. Kinias;

  • C. Richards;

  • M. Does;

  • D. Wake;

  • N. Danczak; and

  • B. Durham.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the delegation requests BE APPROVED to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by C. Rahman

That with respect the Master Mobility Plan, the following part be added:

e)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to re-start the Discover Wonderland Road Environmental Assessment, with expanded limits from Southdale Road to Fanshawe Park Road, in order to construct six general purpose, through lanes along the corridor with a long-term build-and-convert option to Bus Rapid Transit and to modify the MMP maps accordingly and that the estimated cost of the six general purpose lane widening be used in the creation and prioritization of projects in the 2028 Development Charges Background Study;

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee recess at this time, for 10 minutes.

Motion Passed

The Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee recesses at 4:26 PM and reconvenes at 4:41 PM.

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lehman

That with respect the Master Mobility Plan, the following part be added:

f)  the Mayor and Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to engage in discussions with neighbouring municipalities and the Province to work collaboratively on a ring road and integrated transportation network that would help move people, goods and services within and across the region;

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That part c) be amended with a new part i) and reads as follows:

c)    the Cycling Network maps BE APPROVED, except:

i) the following Proposed Network Additions BE REMOVED from the Network Cycling maps:

A. Royal Crescent east of Clarke Road to Wexford Avenue to Admiral Drive;

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That part c) be amended with a new part i) and reads as follows:

c)    the Cycling Network maps BE APPROVED, except:

i) the following Proposed Network Additions BE REMOVED from the Network Cycling maps:

B. Sovereign Road;

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That part c) be amended with a new part i) and reads as follows:

c)    the Cycling Network maps BE APPROVED, except:

i) the following Proposed Network Additions BE REMOVED from the Network Cycling maps:

C. Vancouver Street from Trafalgar Street to Wavell Street;

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That part c) be amended with a new part ii) and reads as follows:

c)    the Cycling Network maps BE APPROVED, except: 

            ii)        the following Proposed Network Additions: Huron Street, Taylor Street, McNay Street and Gammage Street to BE REMOVED from the Cycling Network maps;

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That pursuant to section 33.8 of the Council Procedure By-law, the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE PERMITTED to proceed beyond 6:00 PM.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That part a) be amended with a new part i) and reads as follows:

a)   the Roads Projects maps BE APPROVED, with the following amendment to the Roads Projects Timeline;

i) expansion of Bradley Ave from Wellington Road to Highbury Avenue BE INCLUDED in the next improvement cycle.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Trosow

That part c) be amended with a new part iii) and reads as follows:

c)   the Cycling Network maps BE APPROVED, except:

iii) the Windermere Road to Gainsborough Road Active Transportation Connection BE REMOVED from the Cycling Network maps;

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Hillier

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

g)    the communication from D. R. Schmidt, Development Manager, Corlon Properties Inc./Sunningdale Golf & Country Club Ltd. BE REFERRED to a future meeting of Planning and Environment Committee;

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to approve part a), as amended.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to approved part b).

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to approve part c), as amended.

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to approve part d)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

Motion to approve the balance of motion, as amended.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.2   Consideration of Appointment to the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee (Requires up to 11 Members)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the following applicants BE APPOINTED to the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee for the term ending March 31, 2027:

Carrie Briley

Mason Bruner Moore

Jordan Bragg

Megan Papadakos

Alicia McGaw

Terry Smith

Adam Lumley

Grace Sweetman

Zoe Beecham

Elysa Spetgang

Natalie Judges

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Consideration of appointment to the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee.

Majority Winner: No majority

Consideration of appointment to the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee.

Majority Winner: No majority

Consideration of appointment to the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee.

Majority Winner: No majority

Consideration of appointment to the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee.

Majority Winner: No majority

Consideration of appointment to the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee.

Majority Winner: No majority

Consideration of appointment to the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee.

Majority Winner: No majority

Consideration of appointment to the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee.

Majority Winner: No majority

Consideration of appointment to the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee.

Majority Winner: No majority

Consideration of appointment to the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee.

Majority Winner:

4.3   Consideration of Appointment to the Community Advisory Committee on Planning (Requires up to 11 Members)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That consideration of appointment to the Community Advisory Committee on Planning and the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee BE REFERRED to the April 1, 2025 meeting of Council.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.4   Consideration of Appointment to the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee (Requires up to 11 Members)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That consideration of appointment to the Community Advisory Committee on Planning and the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee BE REFERRED to the April 1, 2025 meeting of Council.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.5   Consideration of Appointment to the Covent Garden Market Board of Directors (Requires 1 Member)

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That William Westgate BE APPOINTED to the Covent Garden Market Board of Directors for the term ending November 14, 2026.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Consideration of Appointment to the Covent Garden Market Board of Directors.

Majority Winner: William Westgate

4.6   London Transit Commission Assessment Growth Business Case

2025-03-25 Submission - Assessment Growth-LTC

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by E. Peloza

That with respect to the communication from London Transit Commission regarding Assessment Growth Business Cases, the following actions be taken:

a)   the communication dated March 3, 2025 from S. Marentette, Board Chair, London Transit Commission BE RECEIVED;

b)   the current London Transit Commission BE DISSOLVED, effective April 1, 2025;

c)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward to the Municipal Council meeting on April 1, 2025, a by-law with the necessary amendments to By-law No. A.-6377-206, as amended, to provide that the London Transit Commission shall consist of five (5) members of Council, recognizing this as an interim measure pending the outcome of the ongoing governance review;

d)   the Council Member appointments to the London Transit Commission BE REFERRED to the April 1, 2025 Council meeting;

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED bring back a report to Council at the earliest opportunity with recommendations for further interim supports while Council awaits the completion of the governance review;

f)    the resignations from D. Little, J. Madden and Councillor D. Ferreira BE ACCEPTED;

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

  • a communication dated March 20, 2025 from Councillor C. Rahman, Deputy Mayor/Councillor S. Lewis, Councillor D. Ferreira and Councillor/Budget Chair E. Peloza;

  • a communication dated March 23, 2025 from D. Little;

  • a communication dated March 23, 2025 from J. Madden; and

  • a communication dated March 23, 2025 from Councillor D. Ferriera.

it being further noted the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard delegations from the following individuals with respect to this matter:

  • S. Marentette;

  • J. Madden.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by E. Peloza

Notwithstanding the Council Procedure By-law, the delegations from S. Marentette and J. Madden BE APPROVED to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the motion regarding the London Transit Commission BE REFERRED to the next meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee.

Motion Failed (3 to 12)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by E. Peloza

Motion to approve part a):

a)   the communication dated March 3, 2025 from S. Marentette, Board Chair, London Transit Commission BE RECEIVED;

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by E. Peloza

Motion to approve part b):

b)   the current London Transit Commission BE DISSOLVED, effective April 1, 2025;

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to amend part c) to read as follows:

c)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward to the Municipal Council meeting on April 1, 2025, a by-law with the necessary amendments to By-law No. A.-6377-206, as amended, to provide that the London Transit Commission shall consist of five (5) members of Council, recognizing this as an interim measure pending the outcome of the ongoing governance review;

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

Motion that part d) of the motion referring to Council appointments to the London Transit Commission BE REFERRED to the April 1, 2025 Council meeting.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by E. Peloza

Motion to approve parts e) and f) to read as follows:

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED bring back a report to Council at the earliest opportunity with recommendations for further interim supports while Council awaits the completion of the governance review;

f)    the resignations from D. Little, J. Madden and Councillor D. Ferreira BE ACCEPTED;

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

  • a communication dated March 20, 2025 from Councillor C. Rahman, Deputy Mayor/Councillor S. Lewis, Councillor D. Ferreira and Councillor/Budget Chair E. Peloza;

  • a communication dated March 23, 2025 from D. Little;

  • a communication dated March 23, 2025 from J. Madden; and

  • a communication dated March 23, 2025 from Councillor D. Ferriera.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   (ADDED) Council Resourcing Review Task Force - Terms of Reference - City Clerk

2025-03-25 Submission - CRRTF Memo

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Council Resourcing Review Task Force – Terms of Reference:

a)   the Council Resourcing Review Task Force BE ADVISED that a review of the Mayor’s Office to be outside of the scope of the task force;

b)   the Council Resourcing Review Task Force BE ADVISED that a review of the Councillors’ Office administrative staff support model to be in scope of the 2025 review;

c)   the Terms of Reference BE AMENDED to include a new part within section 1.6 to read “Councillors’ Office administrative staff support model”; and

d)   the memo from the City Clerk, dated March 25, 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Confidential 

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee convenes In Closed session to consider the following:

6.1    Solicitor-Client Privilege

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, with respect to the contract for Integrity Commissioner Services, including communications necessary for that purpose and directions and instructions to officers and employees or agents of the municipality.

Motion Passed (10 to 5)

That Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee convenes In Closed Session, from 2:21 PM to 2:39 PM.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 9:24 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (8 hours, 19 minutes)

colleagues I’m going to ask you to take your seats it’s 1 p.m. so we’re going to commence the meeting in just a couple of moments. My colleagues we’re going to call the fourth meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to order. I want to begin by acknowledging that the City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabic, the Haudenosaunee, Lene Paywalk, and Adawanda and Peoples and we honor and respect the history languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people called this territory home.

The City of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis and Inuit Peoples and as representatives of the people of the City of London we are grateful to have this opportunity to work and live in this territory. The City of London is also committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meeting upon request and to make a request specific to this meeting please contact sppc@london.ca or phone 519 661-2489 extension 2425. I do want to note with regard to accessibility the City has been having issues with its website today and the intermittent accessibility to the City of London’s website may mean that if you are using the eScribe stream to follow the meeting you may have difficulty doing so the YouTube stream will be up and running through the meeting so if you are watching virtually I recommend a switch to the YouTube stream just to ensure stability throughout for you. I am going to begin by looking for any disclosures of hearing interest being none just before we start moving into our agenda items colleagues I know it’s not lost on many on any of you that this is a fairly substantive agenda should we approach 6 p.m.

we will need a motion to extend I just want to advise colleagues that a couple of Councillors have already advised me that they would not be supporting a motion to extend that they have commitments this evening that may require them to leave so I’m just asking colleagues to be considerate and thoughtful of the time I know that we may have some strong positions opinions feelings on some items on the agenda but I do hope that we can dispense with those as efficiently as possible while still having a fulsome debate on that I will also advise colleagues that I have requested because of the length of this agenda for there to be some refreshments and in terms of some beverages not the fun kind but some beverages and some snacks in the Councillors lounge and it’s my intention to look for a 10 minute recess at approximately 4 p.m. depending on where we are on the agenda to allow for a quick refreshment and biobrake as folks need then we’ll resume I’m going to ask that if you want to bring snacks back in you do that we’re not going to take a long break for something to eat and then to come back we’re going to continue the business of the committee so that’s the intent right now of course I’m in your hand should people look to make changes to that but we’re going to move on to the consent agenda I know a motion has been circulated in 2.2 the secondary school pass pilot program update has been pulled to be dealt with separately looking to see if colleagues want anything else to be pulled to be dealt with separately noting that you can still debate any of the items in the consent agenda seeing none so do we have a mover for the council of Ann Mirberg and then Councillor Hopkins so that’s everything except 2.2 and now we can open the floor for debate and discussion on item on those items not seeing any Councillor oh now I’m seeing multiple hands so we’re going to go Councillor Pribble Councillor Ferrera Councillor McAllister and that’s the order that I saw folks in. Councillor Pribble go ahead. Thank you and to mainly comments not as questions but 2.4 2.5 I will be very brief very glad to see the quick start actions coming to place and being before the deadline what we asked for last year so thank you very much for that the master plan for downtown extremely important and I hope we stay on this path with the deadlines with the initiatives and I truly hope and believe that this will happen in our downtown so thank you to the staff and that’s it thank you go now to Councillor Ferrera thank you chair I’m gonna be making comments to the same thing as Councillor Pribble for both the downtown master plan quick start actions and the consultant report that we got so you know I as I say again and again this is a big deal for us and we are now at a crossroads where we are going to decide what the future state of downtown can be we’re gonna get on that pathway anyways you know like for the longest time that I can remember from my entire adult life the conversation has been revolving around where is downtown going what is the state of downtown and where exactly is it gonna lead us and just kind of in the multiple conversations especially I’ve since I’ve been a Councillor so that conversation has been more abundant but the question is of where we’re going is is a real one and our downtown has many paths that it could go on and if we don’t get a handle on it it can go down an uncontrolled path and it might not lead to somewhere where we want to go so the way that I see this this master plan that is going to be developed soon is kind of like the road map the map of basically informing us of where we can go and where kind of the golden zone is so with that map and once we get that plan and we have a very good consultant that we have picked and I’m hoping for all your support on that that is going to provide us kind of the path and the know-how and how to do what we need to do to take us on the right path of where the future of downtown is going to be so you know this is that it’s a very big deal for us and now the question the conversation that I’m gonna have of where downtown’s going I can actually have a real answer and I can have an answer which shows that we have a handle on things so I’m really really proud of that further to that I’d also like to say staff great great great job everything everything that we’ve talked about everything that’s kind of come to fruition in the report I’m very happy with everything so I really appreciate that I know that this is just one point and we’re gonna be continuing that discussion but at this point I can’t say enough what a fabulous and wonderful job that I’ve seen so far and I’m just I just hope that I can be up to the standard and par that you guys are at and this relationship and this working dynamic continues on so I’m really happy with that so the last point I like to say is with the consultant report the Canadian Urban Institute we are so so lucky that the Canadian Urban Institute has put their submission forward was a plan taker and then was selected we have a Canadian company that has been around since I think the 90s tons of tons of experience and experience in specific areas that we’re talking about right now we’ve seen them have experience in leading downtown revitalizations conducting data driven research on housing and specifically for office to residential conversion and urban resilience so we are bringing in a proponent if we select them today which I hope that we do that is gonna do wonders for us so we are very lucky this is a very critical crossroads and we seem to have the tools sitting in our hands right now to get on the right path so I’m hoping for full support for both the quick start actions and the consult the Canadian Urban Institute so I guess I’ll leave my comments there because I don’t want to go on too long but thank you thank you Councillor for a Councillor McAllister thank you and through the chair I just had a few comments in terms of 2.3 so the strategic advocacy framework I just want to start by thanking both staff Mayor Councillors Frank Hopkins appreciate all the advocacy that goes into these kind of plans I was impressed in 2024 I think we’ve seen a lot of good traction in terms of some of the sport we’ve got whether that’s the housing accelerator funds you know money for infrastructure I do think that that’s a testament to all the work and the advocacy that Council and staff have done so I really do appreciate that I think 2024 is a good year and I look forward to see when we do in 2025 I did just want to make maybe one suggestion I think it would be beneficial especially in light of the fact that we do have a local MPP who is now cabinet minister and then also currently there is a federal local MP who is a cabinet minister that perhaps on some action items or priorities that we see in the city if we could have maybe delegations from Council to meet with those representatives directly throughout the year and not just at the larger conferences I think that’d be beneficial and hopefully we can get some more money allocated to some of our priorities so thank you for all the good work and I hope to see more in 2025 thanks thank you Councilor McAllister Councilor Stevenson thank you two things 2.5 the appointment of the consultant I should have pulled that because I will not be supporting it so I’ll be voting against that at council I’m not supportive of four hundred and fifteen thousand dollars on another consultant when we have other plans and and and things that we could use now in terms of 2.4 the downtown master plan there was a submission from the midtown community organization and I I do really appreciate wherever core area was mentioned in here but there were two places where it wasn’t and that is action number 2 the prioritized municipal compliance deployment it talks about a downtown route and the vacant commercial space fit-out grant it talks about here about the downtown CIP area so I just wondered through you to staff if there’s an opportunity to expand those two into the core area given that we spend a lot of time on our strategic plan specifically saying we we are very interested in all three of those areas well let’s go to Mr.

McCauley Mr. Mathers did you want to start yeah absolutely so regarding those two items specifically so the municipal compliance deployment as you can imagine one of our of our our our clear messages that came to us when we’re developing this this list of items is that we’re not looking for any type of additional funding to be able to support this work so we were very mindful of that if we are looking to expand any of these items it’s going to require that additional investment which is probably more likely item that we want to be brought forward as part of the multi the budget update process versus having it as part of the body of this report so there will be a further opportunity to provide commentary on the commercial fit-out program this is going to be coming towards coming forward to planning and environment committee so the opportunities for both any of the area associations to provide some commentary currently it is very much focused on the downtown because that’s what we’ve heard is being a priority as part of the multi-year budget discussions but there still will be opportunity to provide more feedback and did Mr. McCauley did you want to add something or was that all covered did everybody sorry I just I saw you come over to answer and then I saw Mr. Mathers hand go up first so just want to make sure we’ve got all the the points on the response covered go back to Councillor Stevenson okay thank you I appreciate all of that I will explore between now and council potentially finding money from the economic development reserve fund or something so that we can do the quick start municipal compliance to part deployment throughout midtown and the core area especially we’ve got the hard rock hotel now open we’ve got Kellogg’s and we want that to be a beautiful vibrant space right from one end to the other so I’ll work on that between now and council and there’s an opportunity for the commercial space Fido Grant so that sounds great I’ll deal with that then so otherwise yes excited to see some quick start actions here particularly the addressing the open drug use strategy and very much again appreciate the fact that a lot of these stay core area and not just downtown thank you Councillor Stevenson looking for any other speakers seeing none then I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote on the consent items we try to vote yes Mr.

Palosa Councillor Pribble Councillor Palosa votes yes closing the vote motion carries 15 to 0 thank you colleagues so that we will deal with 0.2 as was pulled under deferred matters later in our agenda so moving on we come to scheduled items this would be the integrity commissioners annual report resubmitted there’s the attached appendix for the cost of services as requested by Councillor Trussau you have an added direction motion for consideration from myself and Councillor van Mirberg and you haven’t added from Councillor Stevenson as well we do have Mr. Abrams from principals integrity with us via zoom I am in your hands we can proceed in one of two ways we can move a we can take a motion on the floor to receive and and deal with the additional motion we can have a presentation from our integrity commissioner and provide colleagues with an opportunity to ask questions if they would team that they’d like to do that because this is a report that’s required by one of our service providers so we can have a Q&A but I’m in your hands as to how you want to proceed do you want a presentation from the integrity commissioner or are you prepared to get a motion on the floor I’m seeing multiple hands up Councillor Pribble I’m gonna go to you first I would like to put a motion that’s in front of us I would like to put it up to the table right now thank you okay hey got everybody’s hands give me just a moment which motion Councilor Pribble the motion by the Deputy Mayor and Councillor van Mirberg do we have a seconder for that Councilor Cuddy okay I saw multiple hands up so I’m going to go in order that I saw them just for the sake of trying to recognize everybody so I have Councillor Hopkins then I have Councillor Frank then I have Councillor Trussow so I’m going to proceed in that order I will advise although I was prepared to move the motion and leave the chair for Councillor ramen it’s been moved by another member of council I may pass the chair over to Councillor ramen but for now we’ll proceed in that order Councillor Hopkins thank you Mr. Chair for recognizing me I thought the whole idea of having this report go to SPPC was for a presentation I think a big part of the integrity commission as well is to educate and would like to hear the presentation Councillor Frank thank you yes I was also going to ask for a presentation and wondering if we can still have it despite there being a motion on the floor well bear with me for one moment and I will check on that that was a quick conference that is still in order so we can proceed that way so but I did have Councillor Trussow on those two so Councillor I want to see if you want to comment or if you want us to go to the Mr. Abrams first I would like to hear from Mr.

Abrams but under the circumstances and I know that the committee can make this is a motion given everything that’s on the floor today I think he should as a matter of courtesy be given the opportunity to address questions that Councillors may have and I would hate to cut that off on a procedural thing because I think he deserves it he deserves to be able to have that interaction as do we and and I will say Councillor given the way the motion is structured because there are different clauses and so you could in theory before we vote ask to pull them apart and vote on them differently that would be in order I think after the presentation as part of our deliberations you could direct questions to the presenter so we’re going to go then to Mr. Abrams so that he can present the report that was referred back to us by Council so I do ask as we ask of all of our presenters at Council Mr. Abrams if you can try and keep it within five minutes please and I’ll go to you to start when you’re ready thank you very much Deputy Mayor good afternoon members of the committee I’m I’m happy to be here this afternoon our intention at Council where this report was first scheduled to be considered was to provide a good news story because the framework appears to be working in the way it was envisioned supporting Councillors ethical decisions with confidential advice were requested and resolving as best we can allegations of ethical breach using a dispute dispute resolution approach and quite obviously though in reading the agenda I see some members of Council of Concerns and I think it is important that I address them to the extent I can you have the periodic report before you and I’m happy to answer your questions on it both respect to our activity for London Council and also our observations more generally but I’m unsure the amount of time I have this afternoon so I’ll address at a high level what I think is important on the basis of the content of the report and also the additions to the agenda and I’m available for questions first we’re more than pleased to be serving as the city’s integrity commissioner but if there’s a majority of you that confidence has been lost in us we write in mutual 30-day exit clauses into our agreements for this very reason I would hope however that you provide us the opportunity to address your concerns before an attempt is made to do that aside from Councillor Stevenson’s concerns which we have for the most part heard each time you’ve been before you I’m unaware of what concerns have motivated the deputy mayor and Councillor Ben Mirgen to seek your consent to terminate our relationship and I would hope that their specific concerns are raised today and that we be at least given an opportunity to respond I and I thank you for allowing me this presentation I did hear this morning some of the deputy mayor’s concerns voiced through a media interview and it seems we have a significant disconnect or misunderstanding and how an IC’s role is to be done and that I hope we can address today second this may seem trite but with respect to an integrity commissioner’s role in investigating complaints we do not have what is described as own motion power nor do we desire that power complaints are initiated by people who believe that the Code of Conduct or the Municipal Conflict Interest Act has been breached and not by us and we make determinations on weather and how to pursue complaints mostly on their impact on public interest and/or impact on the individuals involved we do not commence an investigation lightly and we do truly we focus on the achievement of course correction over punishment thirdly we were obliged to conduct our work under a statutory provision for secrecy I will do my best to answer committee’s questions today but I am maybe restricted at times and I will tell you when that is the case with respect to the critiques submitted by Councillor Stevenson we have heard and responded to her concerns before and were well canvassed in the two reports concerning her and by her and council’s questions and statements when those reports were delivered by my colleague but let me make a few general points in response to the memo she’s submitted if I may all complaint inquiries are conducting accordance with the tenets of procedural fairness that does not mean that every complaint investigation is done the same way it does mean that an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful way is provided to respondent named in the complaint it does mean we give due consideration to the submissions made it does mean we make our own independent assessment of the information on the balance of probabilities and that we explain our reasons in every case where we make preliminary findings of reach and where those findings create the potential for a recommendation report to council we issue a preliminary findings report that is an important step in our process and we recognize its potential as a curative step as well we consider the submissions made on it intently and if we are not persuaded that breaches did not occur in other words we remain of the view that our findings are correct we complete our work through a recommendation report written so it is clear to council and the general public why we have made our findings and why those findings in our view support our recommendations secondly Councillor Stevenson has indicated that she was not offered an informal resolution in the two cases we reported on that I want to make clear informal resolutions are achieved not offered the disposition letter summaries which some of you have received and there’s one on the agenda today our examples of that word is made clear that the facts as alleged were disproved or not capable of proof where an ethical overstep is acknowledged and a genuine count not to repeat is made where where the impact on individuals of the nature that a public report is not compelling in another similar circumstances these are examples of when an informal resolution can be achieved so members I was hoping to walk you through the role of integrity commissioners our activities here in London but also what importantly some perspectives on the experience of ourselves and other ICs throughout Ontario and lessons that can be learned from those experiences and observations I would be more than happy to address questions on the report itself if you have them on the remarks I’ve just made and on the items that have been added to the agenda thank you Mr. Chair thank you Mr.

Abrams and I will now look to start a speakers list as we do have a motion on the floor so we’ve got something to frame our discussion around which includes receipt of the report so that encompasses anything that’s in the report so I will look for a speakers list now Councillor Hopkins yes thank you and thank you Mr. Abrams for being here with us today I do have a question and then I’ll make some comments but my question is around the code of conduct I know at AMO it’s it has been for a number of years a big conversation on how can we improve it but my question is a little bit broader than that because there are changes I guess with the provincial government but I’d like to have a better understanding what the integrity the provincial integrity commissioner’s role is and what your role is to municipalities and how they intersect and I hear from time to time we’re waiting for the province to approve the code of conduct and therefore we have to hold back a little bit and wait before we can make changes and I’m never really sure what changes can we make so if that makes any sense just to have a better understanding of the provincial part of it and the municipal part and how it all comes together certainly thank you sir your question thank you chair so I think you’re referring to the province wide code of conduct that the former minister municipal affairs mentioned I think at AMO and also bill 241 which was died on the order paper with the calling of the provincial election that bill did contemplate of province wide code of conduct we don’t have anything tangible to comment on right now and there was in that bill reference to the role of the provincial integrity commissioner the ICO and it may surprise people to learn that there is very little connection between the ICO and municipal integrity commissioners at present we submitted and tried to get engaged the ICO on a conversation about what the code might look alike what a bill might look like and and submitted materials we were thanked for our materials but there was no discussion there has been no consultation between integrity commissioners and the provincial integrity commissioner as far as I’m aware and I have canvas some of my colleagues in that regard now to the extent that a bill like bill 241 or with some changes and hopefully there are changes is presented to the legislature and there is contemplation of a a province wide code of conduct I understand that municipalities across the problems are get disturbed by that prospect I think it important that work on the development of codes of conduct continue if only to serve as a good foundation for whatever might later be recommended by by the province or by the the provincial integrity commissioner I have comments on the bill that was presented I’m not sure that that would respond directly to your questions so why don’t I hand it there and see if you have any further for the questions of me also Hopkins yeah I’m satisfied with your answer I’m always curious as to why we’re always waiting for something before we can do something that I think I have a better understanding of the province wide legislation and how it works I just want to make a comment in your report you also said about the work that’s going to happen in April I guess with London’s local boards I hear from some boards and agencies the need for a better understanding we’ve got a lot of new members to have an education a component and in understanding that the governance level it from a board perspective so thank you for doing that also I just want to say thank you I rely on your advice when I’m never sure of where to go I think the education component of your job is also very important because it helps us do our work with the integrity so thank you I welcome thank you Councillor Hopkins looking for other speakers Councillor Stevenson thank you there does appear to be a very large disconnect because I heard the integrity commissioners say at the beginning of this that things seem to be working fine well I don’t agree the first complaint for December or the findings that came in December 2023 the protocol was not followed the first communication I received from the integrity commissioner found me in breach and when I questioned it the they said that the protocol was not followed because it was also Stevenson I’m gonna ask you to just pause for a moment Councillor Truss I’ll on a point of order I’ll just make this once and maybe I won’t have to my my my sense is that this matter has been decided by this council and we’ve gone through we’ve gone through everything that has to do with the previous complaints so my point of order is anything that has to do with rehashing or relitigating the the decision that was sent to us with the recommendations is not something that should be on the table at this point unless it goes to a broader policy and what I’m what I’m hearing is the same type of back and forth that we heard many times during the previous discussions of this council which I considered to be closed thank you Councillor Truss out so I’m going to on this point of order agree that we need to stay framed to the motion that’s within what that’s on the floor Councillor Stevenson if you’re tying something in a prior report or in this report to a reason why you’re supporting the motion that’s on the floor but I do think the council has a valid point in that we’re not relitigating reports that have already been received by the council we’re focusing on this report today and what we are going to do as a result of it so if you can tie your comments to that just just so that we’re staying within the scope of what’s on the floor thank you I will do that do that and I will say that the integrity commissioner referred to these at length so I asked that I be afforded the same courtesy and it does all tie into why I am supporting this because there is a very large disconnect things are not working fine we were told that the protocol was not workable we asked for a review last May and that has not been done I filed an ombudsman complaint on the first one which is ongoing and I will be filing a complaint on the second one which are all billable hours for the integrity commissioner as well the when the talk of the other reason why I’m supporting this motion is because due process was not afforded and regardless of them not all looking identical in the last complaint in December I was not given the examples of the bullying behavior until the final report came with the recommendation of a pay sanction that is not giving in the municipal integrity commissioner best practices guide number two is follow the local code of conduct and the complaint product protocol which was not done in either case in the findings against me number seven is to provide an opportunity to respond to allegations again not afforded that prior to the sanctions being written down number eight is communicate with the parties and that again has been lacking with this integrity I’m gonna just ask you to pause again and we have another point of order being I just I just think once we start making references to the sanctions in a particular pay case we are revisiting that particular case and I just don’t think we should be doing that so I would I would just ask for another question thank you counselor and I will say to counselor Stevenson if we can I do see that you’re tying some specific points to the code of conduct into the reason for your supporting the motion that’s on the floor but if we can try to focus on how you feel our code is not being applied versus particulars of the prior finding I know that might be splitting hairs a little bit I’m just trying to I’m trying to provide an opportunity for you to raise your points without us relitigating a prior report so I’m just asking that we try and tie back on your specific points what relates to the motion that’s on the floor and and the report that we have today on the floor from the integrity commissioner okay thank you there also seems to be this the reason why I’m supporting this is because the integrity commissioner keeps referring to their broad liberal interpretation and we heard this in the news interview where they said they you know that was unfortunate that it was called a code because it should be this broad liberal interpretation when I was asked I was told not to vote in that first committee meeting council meeting and it was incorrect and I had this council my colleagues and the public feeling like I was just some kind of cowboy that didn’t follow the rules rather than one who actually knew the rules we were given an opinion which in the disposition you can see they they still assert that their opinion is that one should not vote but that is not what was stated it was a declarative you may not vote so again this it this broad liberal interpretation even goes to the MCIA and so I’m very unhappy with this integrity commissioner I think it’s been very clear we have not hashed let alone rehashed some of the stuff that has gone on here but I do think that we’ve not been well served as an elected official I’ve been not been afforded due process by this integrity commissioner I have not been treated with respect or with the professionalism that I deserve to be treated with and it’s been completely unsatisfactory to me and I will be supporting this motion and I appreciate my colleagues for addressing this very unfortunate very expensive and certainly has done absolutely nothing to support in in fact has gone against building trust and in there in in this city’s municipal politicians so I support this and I hope colleagues have taken the time to read the letter and the disposition letter because it very clearly shows how this integrity commissioner seems to want to do a broad liberal interpretation on our protocol on the best practices and on the MCIA rules thank you councilor Stevenson looking for other speakers council question to the chair would this be an appropriate time to address a question I have about the report absolutely okay first of all thank thank you thank you very much for coming and the the portion of the report which is on page 34 and 35 of the original agenda is is under the staying in your lane and I know I know this is a difficult issue in terms of the relationship between staff and counselors but I need to ask when we talk about the first the first sentence on page 35 it’s important to strike the correct balance between guiding constituents and becoming their advocate and I just I just want to personally really need to personally say I consider myself to be an advocate for primarily the residents of my ward but on selected issues residents around the city and when I ran for office I made it very clear that the reason I wanted to do this was was to be an advocate on certain on certain issues so what what I’d like to ask is what is the source for the this well the the portion that I that I just that I just read because I don’t think it’s the intention of the Municipal Act for for counselors not to advocate on behalf of constituents thank you and I and I ask that question very respectfully thank you Mr. Chair and I think it’s an excellent question thank you for the opportunity to respond to it when we it the staying the lane portion with reference to advocacy our concern is and we’ve observed across the the provinces occurring where individuals and members of council have seen themselves as an advocate for a particular constituent hearing their water and attempting to enforce the interests of one particular constituent over others it was not meant to indicate that members of councils elected officials are not in place to advocate for the advocate for their communities to advocate on principles it’s not at all meant to say that it really does drill down to this sometimes friction that occurs between the people that are responsible for administering the municipality on a day-to-day basis electing upon councils priorities and directions those versus an individual member of council who takes it upon themselves to replicate duplicate interfere with that kind of activity so put another way what we say is we see the role of a member of council writ large we see the role as translator a communicator a connector between the constituents they serve and the municipality but never to become the agent of an individual in the community so guidance absolutely is appropriate influence that sort of thing absolutely appropriate and I apologize if you’re reading of this portion of the report was taken to indicate that members are somehow restricted in advocating on on behalf of the interests of their own constituencies I hope that assists councilor truss thank you and through the chair it does to some extent but it’s still not clear to me as a matter of law if there is if there is law on this what that dividing line is and I just want to say from my own personal perspective I do feel a little bit chilled when I when I read that and I don’t I don’t think I’m the shyest or well I have a background in law as people know and I know sometimes I can be a little bit litigious or overbearing and I’ve I’ve made an attempt to deal with that but even if even me is feeling sometimes constrained and in a bill and unable to provide to my constituents what I in good faith believe they need I could just imagine how other people feel about it so I do want to put myself out there as someone who’s knowledgeable in these practices with municipal knowledge but I just I feel very bad when when I get when I get letters from my constituents saying their complaints are just not with do something help me you said you were gonna help me help me and I just it just puts me in a terrible position because I don’t want to take integrity commissioner complaints but I also want to be a good counselor so I think I made thank you I wonder if I may clarify mr. chair just on that last point briefly mr.

Abrams please as it wasn’t really a question directed at you understood the counselor also I I without the benefit of specific examples it’s hard for me to respond but to the extent your constituents are saying to you their concerns are not being addressed there are certainly mechanisms for you to raise those concerns with either staff or if that’s not resolved with with council itself it’s the way that that’s done that can lead to the friction the between the administration and municipality and and your role as an elected official of course that it’s important for you to be able to raise the concerns you hear on behalf of your constituents and I don’t think anything we’re saying would would deny you that ability thank you mr. Abrams Councilor ramen thank you and just to build on this point and I spoke to this as well and I want to say first thank you to mr. Abrams for getting on a call with me to discuss this part of the report particularly the mention of the staying in your lane which I found really challenging one because I found the language challenging in general staying in your lane lane says to me that my relationship is quite different and in a very in a very separated way to that of staff instead of working collectively to solve problems and so I think that that’s where I first first saw an issue just in the title but then as it furthers members of council serve an important role in putting constituents in touch with appropriate staff and leading them to establish processes but it’s important to strike the correct balance between guiding and becoming their advocate so again I think that interpretation alone has led me some some I guess again the chilling effect I think that my constituents expect more of me than to just forward an email and so I want to make that very clear that I reject the the premise of what’s in here and staying in your lane and as I spoke about with the integrity commissioner my challenge with that is if this is the approach that the integrity commissioner perceives that’s my role then we need some process updates because we would have to create more systems and put more processes in place to address concerns from constituents in an escalation pattern that goes where it needs to go which we do not have which and as I mentioned to the integrity commissioner this language reminds me of my time at the school board and that was exactly what I felt we had an escalation protocol it was different from here I felt more empowered to get things done this again sets a chilling effect thank you Council Robin looking for other speakers I’m gonna hope Council Ferrera thanks chair so for this motion like I’m just trying to parse through it I haven’t like I didn’t hear the news this morning with you on the news but I haven’t really heard any reasons why we’re actually bringing this forward like I did read through Councillor Stevenson’s submission and I do say and I did hear the Councillor say about kind of the integrity commissioner saying we may she may not vote three times and there’s a difference between shall and may like shall is a command and may is not necessarily one so I don’t see an issue with that that’s the only real argument that I’ve seen so far I’d need to know exactly why we’ve lost the confidence or some councils have lost confidence in the integrity commissioner to bring this motion through I haven’t heard that so before I’d be able to vote or even make some some comments I need to hear what really is the issue and that’s what I haven’t heard yet so I’m asking if we can if we can get on to the actual real issues that we’ve seen here because I do know that we can’t really get into certain breaches but the things and I hear there’s I guess there’s issue with the large disconnect I hear I hear that but at the same time like for me like I’m not happy with the amount of money that we spent on code of conduct complaints and I’m not happy that the occurrence is coming up and my question really is is what’s next if we were to disband or this I see and get a new one they’re just going to do the same work we’re going to be in the same issue we need to get to the root of what’s going on you know I would remind everybody on council that the IC is here to provide that level of oversight which is also a level of protection for our constituents and for us you know with some of the stuff that has came up in the past the IC has came in and said you know this could incite certain issues and it could really get people upset and we could find ourselves in a more dangerous environment we saw the gallery one day rise up and and we had to clear chambers and the IC is a direct tool to help us tone that down and I’m wondering if we do this and we find a next one what is going to change because the new IC is going to just do the same work and I really don’t want to see a gallery rise up the way we did a couple few weeks back and I’m worried on you know what is the next level if we if we have this conversation and focus on this part of the debate rather than focusing on the real concerns that we should be talking about what’s next it won’t be just a gallery rising up I fear someone coming to your door or my door and knocking at the door so we need to be a little serious about where this conversation is going because as far as I’m concerned if we’re not talking about the root causes and we’re talking about the IC’s overview and we’re talking about possibly disbanding it and getting a new one we’re just gonna start the whole cycle again and we may even be here and there will be no changes no positive improvement so I really am asking to hear what are the reasons what are the real reasons why we’re doing this thank you Councilor Ferra Councilor Raman I’m gonna ask you to take the chair I’ve got myself on the speakers list next thank you go ahead thank you Madam Presiding Officer so through you first a question directly to Mr Abrams this is titled an annual report but it spans a period of 20 months so why have we not gotten an annual report at 12 months and moving forward annual reports that cover a year rather than almost two years thank you about the integrity commissioner thank you the our annual report certainly my definition have to occur after a 12 month period we are attempting across the board to do better at submitting our annual reports closer to the the 12 month period than what we have been this is certainly a longer period than we would like we have been very much engaged with the municipality and have period twice at council on reports and we’re working towards doing it again through revisions to the code of conduct none of that is an excuse for the elongated period of time covered by this report and so we apologize for that it’s not our intention in the future to have the reports that are with such a large gap in time between reports to be mayor thank you Madam Presiding Officer so I’m going to address actually some of what Councillor Ferra was just asking about and I’ve had the opportunity to be a counselor with two different integrity commissioner purchase of service agreements I will share that as has been expressed by both Councillor Trussau and Councillor ramen I find the staying staying in your lane content of this report to be very problematic and have a chilling effect and I certainly never saw content like this or this sort of interpretation of a Councillor’s role from our previous integrity commissioner I am concerned that has has been referenced our current integrity commissioner is relying on the principle of broadly interpreting our role and code of conduct but is has been doing so in what in my opinion is actually not consistent with some of the best practices laid out by the Ontario ombudsman on their website including some of the content that we’ve seen around social media posts even though the ombudsman’s best practices recommends that if council expects social media to be part of the ICs role it should actually be written into our code of conduct which it is not and so I think there has been a long broadening of what is liberal interpretation that’s inconsistent with what the Ontario ombudsman has recommended and I will also share that I have been concerned and I’m not going to provide specific examples because there is that confidentiality piece as well but I have had another member of council share with me a report where a paragraph was copied and pasted clearly from a report to another municipality because the name of the councillor was a councillor in another municipality and that is very concerning to me frankly that we are getting copy and paste paragraphs of reports that were issued to other municipalities inserted into reports with respect to London I’m also very concerned in this current report that’s before us that the our current integrity commissioner and it says that they do not see the role that they do not see the code of conduct as its primary job but a residual role that they say the enforcement of the code is not their primary role and I strongly respectfully disagree with that I think the application of the code of conduct is the primary role I think things like education sessions are secondary not the primary role and should be provided when asked for even to the extent that we’ve heard some commentary on provincial legislation now today it was asked for in session by Councillor Hopkins and I appreciate that but that was not asked for in terms of inclusion in the annual report and that to me is when council asks for advice that’s when it should be provided it shouldn’t be provided unsolicited as a matter of filling out an annual report that’s not even an annual report so having seen how prior a prior integrity commissioner has interpreted the role and how our current integrity commissioner is interpreting the role I do see a disconnect and I think that for me I am looking to thank the integrity commissioner for their service and move forward with looking for an integrity commissioner for our city that might take a different approach to interpreting our code of conduct and providing us advice when requested thank you you have 30 seconds remaining just say no and returning the chair to you with Councillor Stevenson and Councillor McAllister in the list okay Councillor Stevenson I’ll start by advising you you’ve got 40 seconds left and then I’ve got Councillor McAllister and Mayor Morgan Councillor Stevenson thank you in terms of going forward I’ve reviewed a lot of integrity commissioner reports from across the province and I’m happy to provide some on the council added agenda they do not all look like this they usually say this is what happened this is the rule this is why it was broken this is what we recommend I had pages and pages telling me what I believe which I told them was incorrect I had pages about prevailing narratives across the province and all this kind of stuff none of which was requested none of which you see in a lot of other integrity commissioner reports so I’m looking for an integrity commissioner it’s gonna hold us to our protocol our code of conduct in a succinct and unbiased way thank you Councillor and that used exactly 40 seconds Councillor McAllister thank you through the chair appreciate all the discussion today I’m approaching this as I do with most things I’m evaluating it based on my own interpretation I think in terms of the report a lot of my reservations have already been echoed so I won’t go into them and so for me I’m basing this kind of on the the end product I will say at the end of the day we all get to make a decision in terms of what was presented to us so I want to issue a bit of a word of caution that I don’t think what has been done to date invalidates our work as council we have to operate on information provided to us we then make a decision so I just want to say you know in terms of the past work that’s been done I’m not disputing everything I think with the report and what was contained within it I had reservations so I’m I’m looking at this as what I’ve seen as the final product don’t love everything and I don’t have as the deputy mayor said I don’t have anything to compare this to but I do think we could do better I do think there’s things that we can address on our side in terms of trying to improve our processes love for the province to make some movement on code of conduct province wide but in terms of what is before us today I would like to see see a change and hopefully we can get something that would work better for everyone thank you mayor Morgan yes so I’m just thank my colleagues for sharing their thoughts on their experiences I will say I don’t have the same experience I’ve mainly used the integrity commissioner for advice on conflict related matters and so I will say from that perspective I felt like I was very well served got good advice with rooted in good examples of legislation and best practices and other municipalities and so I appreciate that the the integrity commissioners hearing some of the challenges with their service I wanted to be upfront and say there’s certainly some things that I’ve worked with the integrity commissioner on and that very happy with the results of and although that mainly focused on conflict advice so I’ll continue to listen to my colleagues discussion on this and as I decide how I’m going to vote Councillor Palosa and then Councillor Layman thank you also play that Councillor Truffs I’ll have his hand up as well and the live stream is now going I would say also was the second term Councillor that this integrity commissioner does have a different field than the last one but everyone brings a different field to the position when they have it so mindful of that I will just speak from experience whenever I reached out for a meeting it was timely and I would say a two-way conversation if I question something it was still clarification was provided of interpretation and my questioning so I appreciated that also had an integrity commissioner complaints and the findings not in contravention but had that experience as well so I don’t share some of the personal concerns with this integrity commissioner that our other colleagues seem to have had and I certainly did read through all correspondence in past issues and this current one that Councillor Stevenson has put forward a couple questions though realize we never know where the votes gonna go and things are gonna take us as much as we’re questioning 20 months versus 12 realizing there’s always council cycles is it a hard year to be before us in 13 months and realizing there’s always lots of perpetual reports coming to us is this something that normally the city clerk would keep an eye on of what reports do or overdue through you mr. Chair okay in conversation with the clerk I’m going to share with you that the clerk can and has inquired in the past as to when the report is coming but it is completely in the hands of the integrity commissioner to prepare and bring it forward when they on their schedule there is nothing that allows the clerk to compel the report on a specific schedule a separate question the cost of service appendix I appreciate it can I be reminded if this was something that’s normally with the report or was attached because council requested it mr.

Chair that was specifically attached due to council direction as added by Councillor Truss out at our council meeting thank you if I’m looking at process going forward I have two questions I’ll leave it to you in the clerk to decide if we’re talking in in the realm of amendments or whatnot my concerns lie that I did appreciate the cost of service appendix and hoping that with any integrity commissioner report going forward that this could be expected and submitted with it the second part of that is also realizing not knowing how this vote is going to go whatever ongoing or currently submitted files that the current integrity commissioners are working on worry that that work might get lost if we stop this contract so just looking for a direction of what their workload would be transitioned into if not wrapped up should they should be part ways so I can share with you that there is a transfer agreement as part of the contract so any files that were not complete at the end of the 30 days would be handed off to the incoming integrity commissioner to continue the work from wherever our current integrity commissioner had left off in terms of the requirement for financial reporting give me one second to get back to you on clarification on that so on that piece it could be built in to the next contract if if we were to continue with this integrity commissioner service then council would need to provide direction to build to do a contract amendment because it’s not currently a requirement of this contract so there’s two options moving forward for council to provide direction on that depending on what way the outcome of today’s vote is either way that council can provide direction on that moving forward. Councilor Palosa no further questions okay Councilor Layman thank you chair I just want to weigh in with kind of with my thoughts and experiences because people around the the horror shoe here have had you know a different experiences with the integrity commissioner and past experiences with others you know I look at how we look to conduct our business democracy can be messy I think the rules of engagement are intentionally not narrowly defined and it leads to a bit of self-policing and by a by a council and just how are we going to conduct ourselves and that evolves over time I think each council has its its own personality I think how does that personality mesh with you know professional services that that we hire in this case mr. Abrams firm that’s acting as our our integrity commissioner there’s a certain style that I’ve seen and I think it’s again from my perspective I have had the advantage of working with a previous integrity commissioner and the styles quite frankly are quite different the previous integrity commissioner was very concise very on point as is mentioned by by other counselors provided me with a very a good tool to use either personally or when looking at having to rule I guess on certain aspects I don’t question mr. Abrams firm on competency at all I think they’re very professional firm but I do think they have a certain style that might not be meshing with this style of council I think there’s concerns and certainly I share them with implied admonishment of council and other counselors that were outside the realm of the question of hand and in the lengthy rulings that we got our opinion pieces that we got I did find opinions would stray away from what we are really looking at and in some cases I found them almost contradictory within the document themselves and I’m just concerned that with this you know this issue at hand that’s been raised if we’re identifying just unease I guess of the personality of this particular council and how we perceive our roles maybe with the philosophies are working ideal ideal working I don’t want to say ideological stuff I don’t think it’s that I think just ideas on rules maybe that’s that’s a proper way to say it that might lead I think that’s what’s led to this this decision before so I just wanted to change or share my perspective kind of because I’ve had a past experience with with another type of way of doing business and my concerns with how this is interacting with this current council thank you councillor layman looking for other speakers council I think you wanted okay we’ll go to council Hopkins first thank you mr chair I know I had some questions on the report but I would like to make comments now on the motion that’s in front of us and maybe I’ll start up with a couple questions that I have as it relates to the process going forward if this council decides not to to look into a another integrity commissioner and it says since see that a report back would come to a future SPPC meeting so my question is around what is that meeting and and I think it’s important for us to understand when we make decisions what are the unintended consequences not only to us but also to the public that also uses the integrity commissioner so just wanting to have a better understanding when this report will come back so councillor I I think you might be yeah so so today is that meeting the clause see on the motion before us right now is in accordance with the procurement of goods and services policy the city clerk be directed to proceed with the recruitment of an integrity commissioner provide the functions and responsibilities as prescribed in the municipal act 2001 and report back to a future meeting of SPPC so they would report back when they have gone out to do the recruitment of a new integrity commissioner is so we really don’t know when that report will be coming back to us so we will not have an integrity commissioner in the meantime that is not correct clause B says the city clerk be directed to provide principles integrity with 30 days notice and writing pursuant to and then in clause D you have the city clerk be authorized to arrange for interim provision of an integrity commissioner service from another municipality as required by section 223.3 11 of the municipal act the city clerk has the delegated authority to direct IC services from an approved IC of another municipality until our RFP process on a new IC is complete thank you for that clarification I think it’s really important that the public also understands that I would like to make a couple comments on the motion though and given that this is the second integrity commissioner that I’ve had a relationship with I think it’s fair to say that all integrity commissioners are very different and I’m sure any other integrity commissioner that we decide to get will also be very different I also know what municipal election is coming next year so we just have over about a year-and-a-half to find something that fits for us and who knows where that will lead one of the things that I rely on heavily on the integrity commissioner is the education piece and the orientation as we transfer from one council to another I would really like to see more of a fulsome orientation and education piece for members of council and I’m always very cautious again when we make quick decisions here and this feels like a very quick decision because I’m by frankly surprised that that there are a number of counselors that may not be happy with this integrity commissioner and and we’re going to make a decision here it seems very rushed to me and and I am very very uncomfortable not really confident that where we’re going as a council and why we’re making these decisions so I think you know I’ll still keep myself open to being convinced I’ve got it wrong but right now I am concerned on our decision here today Councillor Hopkins and that actually uses up all but five seconds so you’re five minutes just so you’re aware I should have told you ahead of time how much time you had left I apologize for that Councillor Truss out I will advise you’ve got a minute 40 left so I’ll go to you next and then I have Councillor Van Mirbergen thank you through the chair I did not come in here with the strong opinion on this today and I truly believe as I need more help on this I need more help on this and I would prefer to make a motion to defer this to the next meeting and get a report back from the solicitor’s office in terms of what the standards are for termination I know there’s something in the contract it says we can do it but unless the solicitor wants to sit here in the open meeting and say we can do anything we want because that clauses there I would like to get some advice as to what are our obligations that particularly with respect to acting in good faith and and I’m not suggesting we’re not acting in good faith but I don’t know and I need I want help on this I would prefer not to make a motion to go into closed session right now I think we have a lot of things going on on this agenda but I would either like to refer this to another meeting with a with a confidential report or going to close session so what are people’s pleasure so Councillor so perhaps I can help and we can go to our city solicitor’s department for response because I did inquire with the clerk ahead of this motion and I was advised that this would not be an in-camera item because the contract is as a public contract that they would be able to provide advice in public session so I’m going to go to Ms.

Horvus for some commentary on that thank you and through you Deputy Mayor I’ll just note that Mr. Abrams did himself say today that it’s his office that inserts the 30-day termination clause and so that that is a mutually beneficial clause it can be exercised by either the city or the integrity commissioner and it doesn’t contain any qualifications for cause or no cause Councillor Trussow don’t all contracts through the chair have have an implied cognate of acting in good faith regardless Ms. Horvus so I think to answer that question properly we would go in camera so Councillor we’re in your hands as if as to whether or not you want to move in camera I’ll make a motion that we go into camera I would really I’d like to hear from Councillor Van Meerberg and maybe if I could yield to him and then to want this a little bit it’s I’m I’m ready to make a motion to go into closed session because I do think I have some legal issues okay Councillor so I’m gonna ask you to just hold it’s a little unorthodox the I will go to Councillor Van Meerberg and if he wishes to speak before closed session we’ll let him speak first and then I’ll come back to you for that motion if he wishes to wait until after closed session I’ll allow him to reserve that right that that will be up to him I will come back to you if you want to move that motion Councillor Van Meerberg and you like to speak now or do you want to hold you want to speak now go ahead I can share my question for Mr. Abrams is how many municipalities does your firm represent and act as a integrity commissioner for those municipalities Mr.

Abrams yes for integrity commissioner for somewhere in the order of 60 municipalities and the police services board and a DSA. Councillor Van Meerberg now begs the question could that be a reason for example why our annual report came in eight months late there was cutting and pasting with different with wrong names etc etc like in other words I guess what I’m getting to is could it be a situation where you just have much work well no thank you no no I don’t think that’s the case at all and just unpack the question a little bit I’m not sure what the reference is to a wrong name in a document I’m sure I’m not distributing that it occurred but mistakes do happen from time to time I don’t believe that was a reference to this this annual report we much of our Andrew reports are what might be described as boilerplate we every year we look at them and good chunks of them are amended because a lot of the report is taken they advice and lessons learned from across the the the province because that is our approach it takes us about one hour repair an hour in annual report for each of our client municipalities so I I cannot use as an excuse the fact that we have a large clientele as the reason why this particular report wasn’t delivered in a more timely way what I can say this is almost perversely the case that because we have such a large clientele it assists us in being able to provide advice which although we’ve heard differently today we think is the most important function of an integrity commissioner it assists us in providing advice quite quickly because you know a version of the question asked has already been responded to in another setting and so it’s not as if we’re reinventing the wheel each time we’re able to build up on that but the large clientele helps us in that regard Council Mayor Bergen thank you very much I welcome you’re done councilor I’ll go back to councilor trussow if you’d like to make that motion yes I do intend to put a motion I had put a motion I’m putting a motion on the floor to request that we go into hopefully brief closed session for the purposes of getting legal advice with respect to a particular contract and a particular individual and I’d look for a second and and the clerk does have language prepared in e-scribe for that so folks can check is there seeing a seconder and councilor Ferreira so I will ask the clerk to open the vote answer trussow yes posing the vote motion carries 10 to 5 recording in progress colleagues this is committee not council so we stay here for in-camera we’ll ask the public and members of staff to leave we’ll conduct our in-camera business and then we will return to public session here in council chambers all right colleagues we are ready to resume dreams are back up the doors are open public has been able to return to the gallery our staff are back I’m gonna ask council ramen as the vice chair to report out on our in-camera session thank you I’ll report that progress is made on the items which we went in camera thank you vice chair resuming our debate in public session on the motion that’s on the floor with respect to our integrity commissioner purchase the service I did not have any further speakers on the public speakers list prior to our in-camera session so I’m looking for anyone who wishes to be on the speakers list now noting that a number of us have used much of or all of our time up council for rare you have used up three minutes so you have two left thanks chair just a question can we split up the items on the vote we can yes so council are you satisfied with a separate and then be C and D which are all interrelated to an action together Mayor Morgan yeah I just agree I think B should be separate because if B passes people most of council will probably likely want to support C and D even if they’re against it because you’d want to start the recruitment process so I think B is really the piece to separate for me at least okay so and I’m seeing council for a nodding in agreement so we can deal with B first and then all of the remaining clauses together any objection to that approach seeing none then that’s how we will proceed so we will call B I lost the clerk to open the vote on item B as soon as it’s ready and he scribed that’s just gonna take a minute to separate them out and B is the direction to provide 30 days notice closing the vote motion carries nine to six okay and now we will put A C and D on the floor same mover and seconder council trust out yes I’m given given my given my last vote I’m I’m not comfortable voting for BC and D at this point yet and it’s not a decided matter of council so I’m wondering if we can just call a separately and just get the report file okay so we’ve none of this gets finalized until council so by by voting on B you’ve expressed your your unwillingness to proceed in that direction at this time but because that’s passed C and D would still not move forward until this is ratified by council so it’s none of it is a decided matter so I don’t know if you I mean we’re in your hands if you want a separated we can proceed that way so we will separate out a and then we will deal with C and D as well a to receive the report is now open sir trust out yes to receive yes I will yes one thank you closing the vote motion carries 15 to 0 and now we will deal with clauses C and D and as soon as those are ready the clerk will open the vote in the scribe closing the vote motion carries 11 to 4 thank you colleagues so that dispenses with item 3 our scheduled items on our agenda we will now move forward for items for direction and our first item for direction 4.1 is the master mobility plan mobility networks maps there are a number of there are four delegation requests there are some communications there are a couple of motions but the first item that we have is a staff presentation and so before we we move forward with any motions for delegations any motions for any changes we’re gonna receive the staff presentation so I’m gonna ask Ms. Grady to give us that presentation we did have a pre meeting and well normally our presentations are our five minutes unless anyone from committee objects we’re gonna allow Ms. Grady as long as 10 minutes she may not need the whole 10 minutes but up to that time to present as this is a fairly long report to help walk us through so Ms.

Grady Mr. McCray the floor is yours when you’re ready to proceed thank you for this opportunity the purpose of this report is to request council approval of the mobility master plan mobility network map infrastructure recommendations upon council approval the projects identified on the maps will form part of the complete mobility master plan report anticipated for completion later this year the maps will also be used in the creation of the 2028 development charges background study and DC by-law they’re creating the creation of the mobility master plan network infrastructure recommendations considered existing city policies forecasted projected employment and population growth and extensive public consultation the recommendations are also developed to support a future 2050 scenario where the vision of the mobility master plan has been achieved and people are choosing a walk cycle or take transit for 32 and a half percent more of their trips as per the council approved 2050 mode share target the projects are then evaluated based on their alignment with council approved MMP guiding principles these principles ensure that all initiatives address pressing issues such as equitable access congestion connectivity sustainability safety and financial value while supporting the vision for London’s future mobility and land use the recommendations are divided into four sets of maps for legibility and consultation together they form an integrated and coordinated set and mobility infrastructure recommendations to be implemented between now and 2050 phasing maps are also included in Appendix A of the report which includes recommended project phasing of near-term so now to 2020 2035 medium term would be in 2035 to 45 and long-term being 2045 to 50 there are also some maps which include projects beyond the 2050 horizon the MMP team has completed significant outreach over the last two and a half years this has included attending organized events hosting pop-ups conducting interviews holding focus groups and participating in meetings with various organizations and other interested parties as part of the recent engagement on the network recommendations the project team shared information at five public meetings over 14 pop-up events targeted discussions and using a webpage commenting tool feedback collected through all stages of the project has been considered as part of the development of the network and upcoming policy and action recommendations safety was one of the most common feedback themes heard throughout the last two and a half years during the network engagement in particular people were very interested in how safety was being considered in the development of the the plans various safety metrics were included in the development of the project evaluation and criteria including potential for safety improvements or PSI ranking which is an indication of where roads the safety of road users could potentially see the the greatest increase based on collision history and associated details it was also considered if the projects presented an opportunity to provide sidewalk or illumination or non-currently exist and or if the projects provide an opportunity to implement cycling facilities or non-currently exist in there are some planned in addition to the infrastructure recommendation safety is also been a key consideration the ongoing development of actions and policies some examples include updating the road safety action plan prioritizing the implementation of pedestrian and cycling amenities at transit stops and the connecting links to them and continuing to proactively implement traffic calming in school zones as per council strategic plan we also continue to implement traffic calming and other local streets through existing traffic calming program and traffic calming and mitigating of cut-through traffic and new subdivisions is being addressed to the development application process for example mitigating cut-through traffic resulting from the future anticipated opening of Beaver Brook Avenue and Westfield Drive will be addressed to the development approval process associated with those streets there was also a lot of interest in the recommended improvements for Wonderland Road there are many who were in support in support of the recommended rapid transit improvements and a comparative number of people were also commented that they would prefer to see the widening for general purpose lanes people are also often interested in more information on how the corridor recommendations would help address congestion on the roadway and there’s a number of reasons and ways that the recommended improvements do that removal of transit from the through lanes helps free up more space and eliminates the delays from people getting stopped behind buses doing their stop and go at curbside stops the project would also consolidate entrances along the roadway and better accommodate turning movements to mitigate delays from people getting stuck behind cars turning right or left into access points along the road and the project would also improve intersections to address operational issues there’s also a number of complementary projects in the plan to relieve pressures on Wonderland including widening of Warren Cliff Road underpass at CN Railway widening of San Antonio Road and Boulder Road from Oxford to commissioners including the bridge over Thames River and improvements to West Hill born including a future interchange at highway 402 this is something that’s actually been added to the road plans in part based on the community feedback we heard on the networks people were also often interested in what other alternatives have been considered and how they compared in addition to the recommended alternative to wide rapid transit widening for six general purpose lanes was also assessed vehicular travel times for both alternatives is actually very similar based on a future 2050 scenario travel on Wonderland Road from Fanshawe to Southdale would be about 25 minutes based on the recommended alternative and only two minutes different at 23 minutes based on six general purpose lanes these numbers are based on traveling during the TMPM peak hour and are lower in the AM peak and even lower throughout the rest of the day it’s actually the transit travel times which are one of the big differences between these alternatives the recommended alternative would see the PM peak hour transit travel time of 32 minutes for the recommended alternative and in the sixth general purpose lane alternative that would nearly double at 63 minutes making transit travel a much less attractive option in comparison to personal vehicles encouraging more people to take personal vehicles for their trips and increasing vehicular demand along the corridor our modeling actually indicates that wide in six general purpose lanes would see the quarter return to current congestion levels as soon as the mid 2030s so 2035 or so give or take in comparison the recommended alternative significantly increases the people moving capacity of the corridor to beyond 2050 municipal cost is also another big differentiator between the alternatives previous rapid transit projects have received approximately two-thirds funding from other levels of government wide in six general purpose lanes would be less likely to receive funding based on historical funding eligibility criteria would have a significantly larger impact on the municipal budget we have also a request for emergency responders to implement measures along the corridor which enable faster response times with the six general purpose lanes forecast or return to current congestion levels by the mid 2030s emergency response times would be longer than they would be in the recommended alternative with dedicated transit lanes which emergency services would have unrestricted access to the potential the wine to provide to high occupancy vehicle lanes or HOV lanes was also considered however due to the number of access points along the roadway and the fact that drivers can use those HOV lanes to go into before they make their turning movements in or out of an access it basically turns those HOV lanes into general purpose lanes very quickly and the travel times would be comparable to six general purpose we also heard a lot about the historical ring road and a lot of people asked what what had happened to those plans and actually a 2001 study done when the London plan was being developed looked at that and determined that it be very costly and too far removed from the built-up area of the city to be useful time saver for people moving around the city we confirm that through our analysis and the mobility master plan as well the need for a separate ring road is not precluded and a longer term by this plan however the city mental sex County and possibly MTO would have a role in determining the need location and timing for facility facility like this well the MMP is not recommending a ring road there are a number of perimeter road improvements included in the recommendations including a number of interchanges along VMP and widening sections further to the north there’s also a number of recommendations for improvements along Sunningdale including widening to four lanes in the number of sections and we’ve also have improvements in the southwest corner the city along west of Borne which we have extended all the way down to 402 and are planning for future interchange there with respect to the transit priority network we heard request for rapid transit to be extended further east or west or long oxford and another locations when it comes to transit priority measures and planning them they’re very heavily influenced by traffic volumes and road congestion so corridors with more manageable traffic volumes require less transit priority measures to achieve the desired transit travel times and reliability through the course of the project we also heard a lot of inquiries about route planning service areas and service hours with respect to those items the MMP is focused on transit priority infrastructure improvements like queue jump lanes and transit priority signals and dedicated lanes in order to improve the transit travel time and reliability route planning and service areas is considered as part of LTC’s annual service plan review process and they’re part of this team and have been hearing all the feedback throughout the development the MMP we heard a lot of requests for us to connect the cycling network and provide more comfortable cycling facilities throughout so there was a lot of positive feedback on a lot of the gaps we’re planning to address through the recommendations there was also let up a focus on the window mirror to gains rural connection there was a number who thought it would be a very helpful connection and significantly reduced travel time for cyclists there is also a number of people are also very concerned about the potential impact on the ecological system we’re feasible we’ve tried to communicate to the community that this would be a ecology first solution so really at this point an approval of the MMP would just allow staff to undertake further studies to assess the feasibility of ecology first solution and determine what the details of that would look like there would be further points in the future for other decision points once those studies would be completed and here we have an initial estimate of the capital costs roads represents a large portion some of these projects are are included in current budgets transit represents a smaller portion and that would also be contingent on funding from other levels of government cycling represents a much smaller portion of the budget and includes on-road cycling facilities as well as off-road pathways that serve both recreational and commuter needs and sidewalk gaps for major roads are also included on there as well approval this high-level infrastructure planning will allow staff to develop more details for council consideration through subsequent studies such as environmental assessments plenary designs and transit project assessments this incremental approval also supports the creation of the 2028 DC background study that is underway council will have the opportunity to further influence projects through future decision points including the DC background study the multi-year budget and growth management implementation strategy thank you thank you Ms. Grady and colleagues I’m gonna look now that we’ve received the staff presentation to move approval of the delegations I am gonna take the same approach as we do a planning committee council trust out did you want to move those go ahead I would like to make a motion to defer this to a future meeting of the SPPC as soon as possible to determine but to be determined by the team and and the chair and the clerk and the rationale for it is in the last few days and in the last few days we’ve received a number of very various in the last few days we’ve received a number of very significant amendments and some of some of them have not been some of them have been conducted in the press others have not I would like to give members of the public as a matter of the policy of this council the opportunity to weigh in on these my intention here in deferring this is not to delay and I would hope this could be put over to a very very soon to happen SPPC this is in the interest of making this whole plan more coherent this this is it from what I could tell under next steps there is not another council approval it’ll go back to the individual projects so I I think that we should have a public participation meeting before we take what would appear to the public to be the final step on this so I will make that as a motion and I’d be looking for a seconder I’m gonna ask you to hold just a moment counselor okay counselor before we look for a seconder this would not be this a decided matter of council until April 1st the next SPPC would be April 10th there is not time in that period to advert properly advertised for a PPM delegation status could be received but there would be no PPM advertisement and that SPPC because of the Easter weekend does not report into a council until the 22nd of April so we’ll look to see if there’s a seconder but I’m going to then give staff an opportunity to speak to what amounts to essentially a one-month delay means with respect to their preparation for the DC’s background study so first we’ll see if there’s a seconder for the referral not seeing a seconder for the referral I am because you raised it though counselor I am going to ask Ms. Share or a member of your team if you want to speak to the timing that you are working on with respect to the development charges background study I know Ms.

Grady referenced it but I think it may benefit all of council to understand what your timeline is in terms of getting this in place and moved forward thank you Mr. Chair obviously the sooner the better we are a bit tight against the DC background study we did take a bit of a six-month hiatus in terms of the approval of the modal splits which has changed our overall project schedule certainly though if it is the will of committee and council to proceed we will find a way to do as much advance work as we can particularly around the areas that we’re not hearing some of the concerns about major changes but we certainly would like a decision sooner versus later okay so we’ve we’ve heard that timeline we’d have people who’ve sought delegation status so can in order of operations here I’d like us to seek a motion to approve the requested delegations and there are four of them so I’m hoping that somebody is willing to move all four and I see counselor cutting nodding his head yes and counselor many counselors indicating their second will take counselor Hill you’re on that one for a seconder and then I will ask the clerk once it’s ready and he scribe to open the vote on receiving the four delegation requests answer trust out a vote guess answer trust out your mic posing the vote motion carries 15 to 0 thank you colleagues so we’re going to move to our delegation request now we will look to members who’ve sought delegation to approach the microphones in the gallery to give us your your five minutes up to five minutes I will apologize in advance if I mispronounce your name I’m not going to pretend that’s my area of expertise so if I mistake how that should be pronounced my apologies in advance I’m going to start with mr. Wallace thank you mr. Sharon make sure you give me a 30 second notice just in case I get close I want to Mike Wallace from the London Development Institute I want to thank the opportunity for speak today and I want to also thank mr.

McCray mr. Grady for joining LDI a couple of times in the hot seat I would say for a discussion on this mobility plan they have we’ve engaged and they’ve engaged with us on this the first thing I want to do is for your reporting that you should be I think you should be asking staff to do if you look at the the smart moves the 2013 report it talks about it has transit split from walk cycle and automotive and other it actually projects that by 2030 you will have 20% people right it in transit and in 2009 it was 12.5% and if you look at called report from last March here the 2019 with transit was actually at 8% it actually went down in that 10 years so what they have done now online and in the presentation they’ve lumped walking cycling and transit all together and looking at you’re trying to get to I think 35% or so you’re going to be making decisions on investments in transit and other modes of transportation that you need to know whether you’re gaining in transit or you’re not gaining in transit based on the investments you’re making I’d be asking staff to keep that separated out so that you can see what’s actually happening and it doesn’t get locked into one pile of at 35% how much of that’s transit how much that cycle how much to walking and so on that is a recommendation from us on making sure that you have the right information to make the right decisions a reminder that and staff corrected point out a lot of this is development charges if you did the math it’s three billion just shy of three billion dollars and by 2050 that’s a lot of money that’s a lot of development charges there are a lot of there’s indication in the report and in the presentation that other levels of government have to come to the table in some areas including transit but it is still a significant development charge activity over the next 25 years the one thing that we noticed that you know it says in the report we followed as like a classy a approach there’s really no discussion of what a broader look at what whether you like it or not what you know it could we connect some of could we have a proper grid pattern does that require some bridges over some rivers and Greeks in town and so on and so forth and disqualify them because of whatever the reason is but they’re not actually discussed they’re not actually reviewed during this review which is we just want to make point that out you can’t talk about following a proper EA approach and then not not actually doing it as long as you’re aware of that on Wonderland Road you and in in the plan in general please counsel have a plan B and your it says right in the part you can review this every four years or so just look at the numbers on transit like it went down in a lot in 10 years what if this wrap what if let’s hope not but what if the transit plan doesn’t produce the people that you’re hoping it does on Wonderland Road for example you know six lanes we’re all I think we are supportive that we are actually thought that would be ideal to have HOV lanes while transit is growing while residential growth is happening in the area and you bring get people on in the transit system we’re firm believers that we are creatures of habit if you don’t put transit in neighborhoods that are growing our areas that are new people will buy cars or find other methods of transportation to get from A to B and that will be it you put in a bus 10 50 years later it is going to be very difficult to get people to move out of their personal cars and on to transit it just doesn’t have it when you go to a conference you sit in the same freaking seat there every day like we are creatures of habit and so you have to be there in advance or at the very time when people are moving in and we believe in transit throughout the city to be frank where there’s growth happening if you want people to be active in the transit area you need to be putting transit there at that time and that I don’t mean to influence any discussion that’s happening later in today’s meeting but that was not the plan so we’re hoping that between now and the final report that you get there’s still some more consultation we need to understand exactly when it says road improvements need to clarify they need to clarify the specifics and what that costs I got about 30 seconds that also applies to cycling infrastructure on neighborhood roads which wasn’t envisioned in the cycling plan this cycling master plan of 2016 which we have or in the London plan so we think there’s some more consultation as we go forward on the what is really required in terms of cycling infrastructure on neighborhood to connect the roads and where it’s appropriate and where it isn’t we’re happy to be part of the further discussions as we move forward to deal with this at the DC level at the DC committee thank you Mr. Chair thank you Mr. Wallace moving on our next delegate request is from Madeline Himmowitz welcome my name is Madeline Hymowitz thanks thank you for that correction I apologize thanks for the opportunity to speak today I’ve been a resident of and sorry Madeline just before you begin I I fell into being a creature of habit as Mr.

Wallace describe because he presents regularly and but I just want to let you know you have five minutes I will give you a wave with about 30 seconds left so that if you’re running close to your time you can know that your time is is running up against the the clock and conclude your thoughts as you will but I’ll just give a friendly wave when you’ve got about 30 seconds left okay thank you I’ve been a resident of the Orchard Park Sherwood Forest neighborhood for almost 25 years and I was also a member of the local advisory committee for the phase two of the conservation master plan for the Medway heritage environmentally significant area and the staff report states that you’re considering today states that it is vital that the ecological integrity and ecosystem health of the Medway ESA be preserved as the first principle I fully agree with that statement the CSA is one of London’s important natural areas and as you’re aware city policy distinguishes the ESAs from the city’s well-designed and well-used park system and it states that the ESA’s principal purpose is to protect the natural features and ecological functions for this reason I strongly object to the idea of building a connector or bridge over the Medway Valley between Gainsboro and Windermere Road and I ask that you take it out of the plan I urge you to consider the scale and scope of such a bridge project how many of you have actually looked at the site between Gainsboro and Windermere Road if you have you know that there is a deep valley cut by the Medway Creek that’s about half a kilometer across this would require a substantial bridge a major capital project given the topography of the site and the size and the length involved and especially if this is designed to allow for road access it is unlikely that a connection would have no environmental impact in addition to the disruption caused just by the construction what about things such as winter maintenance sand and gravel how would you keep these out of the essay for comparison the footbridge over the Thames between the Thames Valley Golf Club and Spring Bank Park is approximately a hundred meter span a bridge from Gainsboro to Windermere Road would need to be at least five times longer than that that is not an insignificant project some stated justifications for the proposed bridge are to improve neighborhood linkages and to support economic development and tourism not only are these not ecology first arguments but they ignore the harm to the ecological integrity of the essay that would properly result finally if the council is concerned about facilitating bike commuters to Western I suggest you look at some much more cost-effective and more immediate alternatives such as signing the existing routes through the neighborhoods and working with Western and Huron to improve all-season access to and from the campus rather than undermining the integrity of the Medway ESA thank you very much for this opportunity thank you very much we appreciate you coming down today sharing those thoughts with us and our next delegation is Theron Jones not seeing anybody moving to the microphone so I will move to our next delegate and that is Zoe Nias and again sorry if I’ve mispronounced your name quite all right it’s Zoe Kinneas thank you for having me I am also here today to speak out against the Medway Creek bridge that is included in the transportation proposal I underscore the point that this is a very special place within our community before we proceed to destroy this ecologically protected area that we have said is important to us in many different formats I would encourage everyone to go there through each of the four seasons and experience this space it is very very special members of our community from small children to to grown-ups all sorts of people enjoy this place and the natural habitat is very very special claiming that this is an ecologically first assessment is not consistent with the proposal at all in addition to that the very high cost of the bridge I have brought some materials on relative comparisons for this particular length of bridge so in addition to the ecological damage it is likely to be very very expensive for some comparisons the Bow River project in 2014 before the building costs went up with seven million dollars for a 113 meter bridge the Yellowstone River built in 2001 only 90 meters so this will need to be more than five times that length was 5.4 million dollars and the peace bridge which was built in 2012 was 24.5 million dollars for 126 meter bridge so again we’re talking about four to five times that length this is not a trivial cost for what seems to have a very small benefit to our communities the damage to the ecological well-being as well as to the pocketbooks of our taxpayers do not seem reasonable for the the small benefits that could be accrued from this I also just want to share an idea for an alternative plan if we’re concerned about mobility between these two spaces I happen to be a professor at Western University and and live in the Sherwood Forest area so I do that movement regularly we can walk back and forth already if you know the paths it’s quite easy you can also bike that path very easily and I’ll also say that if we’re concerned about the traffic and the mobility around that area that is difficult to pass by car then we can also consider some more simple and cost-effective interventions such as pedestrian bridges at those very troublesome intersections for example at Western and Sarnia that are often backed up very badly if we would put some elevated pedestrian bridges across there that traffic could be alleviated significantly so again as others have shared I think it’s important for us to really carefully consider what we’re proposing the costs to our community our human community and our environmental welfare community and not proceed with this element of the proposal thank you thank you and we do appreciate you taking the time to come down and share that with us today I’m just going to see one more time if Theron Jones has joined us I’ll just ask the clerk to check online as well seeing no there so we don’t have our fourth delegate with us so we will now proceed to move along on the other items related to this item on the agenda I’m next going to go in order that they were received so Councillor ramen and layman you brought forward a motion that is related to this with respect to the master mobility plan so I will go to Councillor ramen to introduce Councillor layman to introduce Councillor layman thank you as you know the letter from Councillor ramen myself we intend to bring forth a motion it’s why I asked you chairs it’s appropriate time to do that so I think that your motion adds to pieces to the master mobility plan potentially if these were passed they would be incorporated I think into the overall motion from a procedure stand point so I think now is the time to do that okay thank you this has been an action long desire by people that are in the West end a number of years ago in the previous council the environment assessment on this project was paused at that time there is enough indication of a severe traffic problem that the EA got underway to begin with plans have been made that can easily be picked up I want to talk about a bit I want to head on you know what we’re seeing as an either or a situation I believe transportation planning has to evolve all aspects of transportation including BRT or higher-order transit cycling walking an automobile traffic I don’t think one solution is the answer to all the issues that we receive I’ve supported BRT for example on Wellington Gateway I think that that’s a perfect example of how I or higher-order transit can work this is not one of those situations so I want to explain a bit how Wonderland works here primary issue is that the bridge at Spring Bank is the only Westerly bridge we have to get across the Thames there is a small bridge down at the end of San Torriman Buller going into the heart of Byron but but this is the major bridge that people use so anyone wishing to go from the north end down to the south end must use this bridge creating a very high volume of traffic and likewise anyone the south end returning have to have again use this portion of Wonderland on top of that you have a high density of commercial primarily Costco I mean it’s a thousand of cars there’s a Costco every day so you have this convergence of traffic that has created this enormous bottleneck how do we how do we address this bottleneck well we we’ve addressed other ball necks east of here the most recent one being Adelaide Street we had tremendous bottleneck there for years finally we got around to going under the railway creating an underpass and it’s it’s just an incredible improvement on the flow of traffic along Adelaide we have the similar need here at this section of Wonderland to say that BRT is going to solve this problem I disagree with the only way it would solve it is for folks to get out of their cars and use transit in this small section I don’t believe that that they will I think down the road for if there’s you know 20 or 30 years down the road if there’s a BRT planned for Wonderland perhaps at that time it can be brought forward but there has been no BRT discussion on Wonderland in the prior Council are up to this point this is such a small section of area that the solution here is what we need to give more space for traffic to get through including transit now there’s been concerns raised about cost yeah it’s gonna cost something here but let’s not forget we have new governments coming into play the new provincial government that is very interested in helping us cities out with infrastructure and new both federal parties the Conservatives and Liberals have made part of their platforms major parties infrastructure in cities I do believe that that costing can be can be our funding can be found shared at some point in regards to as well as costing I mean that’s the whole idea of doing any study let’s find out what are the options what it’s a true cost here I believe that there are options within the preview up to the work that has been done that that we can consider keeping in or delaying for example a new bridge that was one of the big cost factors in this program that in a separate new bridge be built do we need to how do we get under the railway line do we have to expand that railway pass what’s the length do we need to go all the way from what we’re currently proposing here or could it be done phased in for example just Riverside to Sonya they’re very different there’s opportunity here to find different certainly man I’m just gonna pause you because you’ve got about 30 seconds left thank you and I think there may have been a consideration but can I ask that you use at least part of that time please to formally move the three motions that you and Councillor ramen communicated on your thank you communication because those actually haven’t been moved so if you can wrap up by moving those please I’ll wrap up by moving the motion that Councillor and I have put forward thank you and Councillor ramen I’m going to look to confirm that you’re willing to second okay so that has been moved and seconded the three clauses or do you wish to deal with those as separate motions I just need a clarification because you’ve got it’s one letter and you’ve got three sure I’m I’m fine to separate them out and double check with Councillor ramen there I think there are three separate discussion points for sure so we will consider motion one because of the nature of your conversations the restart the discover wonderland road hea with the expanded limits from so they’ll road to Fanshawe Park Road that’s consistent with the the discussion that you were raising through your introduction of that so I’ll deem that as being the motion that’s on the floor and we’ll be we will be looking for speakers to that now yes speakers Councillor Vami we’re gonna have about Councillor Frank ahead of you because she put her hand up first so Councillor Frank I’m gonna go to you first thank you and I appreciate the opportunity to speak about each of these amendments separately and have five minutes for each one for all of us I just had two questions for staff to start I was hoping to get potential estimates on costs for expanding wonderland road just for six general lanes as well as their comments on any improvement commute times I do know that they mentioned it would only improve commute times by 2050 for drivers by two minutes but it would increase bus riders commute times by 31 minutes if they have any other information regarding that I would appreciate it well I will look to whatever member of the MMP team wants to take it Ms. Grady through the chair the preliminary high-level estimates for either project on wonderland whether it’s the sixth general purpose lanes or the rapid transit would be in the order of 400 million from Fanshawe to Southdale some big different shares I guess between them would be that with a rapid transit solution at those very costly structures those rail structures in the river crossing if there was cost prohibitive we could actually have the transit merge with the general traffic lanes it’s not really a viable solution with general purpose lanes because it would really significantly increase the bottleneck at those locations and another important consideration of course would be the provincial funding based on historical rapid transit projects we’ve gotten about 2/3 of those projects funded by other levels of governments it’d be very unlikely that we would get funding for general purpose lanes based on historical eligibility and in your right the travel times the vehicular travel times for both are very comparative it’s only a two-minute difference and it is nearly double the the transit travel time with the general purpose lanes alternative Council Frank thank you and I think that those two points are pretty much my main argument for not supporting this I’m generally not supportive road widening for cars I know we’re calling it general purpose but specifically it’s mostly car use because I personally believe and I know that many others do although not all in Council that that would only create induced demand which would only make traffic worse make commute times worse and increase our emissions I also do think it’s an issue issue of equity as we heard it might improve commute times for drivers by two minutes but it would severely disadvantage people who take transit doubling essentially their commute times by 2050 and given that it would cost a you know significant amount of money to choose either option I don’t think it would be prudent fiscally to first do it for cars and then hope and cross our fingers that we get more funding to then retrofit that section of Wonderland for BRT some point in the future to be determined and not necessarily with funding allocated to it so I’m generally not supportive of this motion as well as I will just finally wrap up I do believe it is really important that we carefully allocate public funds as efficiently as possible and I do believe that in this specific motion that that would not actually assist us in in allocating funds very prudently and it wouldn’t really materially improve people’s commute times so I won’t be supporting this thank you Councillor Frank Councillor Van Meer Bergen thank you chair I’m 110% behind this motion I think this is the right time the right place the only way could be better is if we did this years ago the fact of the matter is we’re approaching half a million people were a major city and we can’t get around in a vehicle that’s a problem people are not flocking to buses and they’re certainly not flocking to bicycles so that’s not gonna alleviate the congestion as far as cost goes this widening of Wonderland has been in the transportation master plan for years and years and during that time we have been setting aside DC’s and those DC’s to my understanding I just had this confirmed earlier today could fund approximately three-quarters of the cost or at least the majority of the cost of this widening and and perhaps I could ask Ms. Barbara to confirm that Ms. Barbara through the chair so in the current DC background study the Wonderland Road why the projects are included in that that certainly again will be updated through the next DC master plan and and that’ll come forward for 2028 but currently it’s approximately 76% that are funded in the DC due to growth also I’ve been advocating the improvement and widening of roads across London for multiple councils now this particular push for the widening in our previous term of council we were basically underway on the expansion and then it came to a grinding halt it even got to the point where there were community open houses in fact I recall attending one with a counselor layman and everything was was a goal and then the breaks were put on we have to take the breaks off we need this road widened it needs to be widened now we’re running the real risk of Balkanization and what I mean by that is setting London up internally with little regions because people are thinking three four five times about whether they want to get stuck in that all that congestion to go and visit friends relatives on the other side of the city because it’s so onerous and that also goes for commerce what’s it doing to the commerce I mean do we really have free trade in London when it’s all congested up I would suggest not let’s improve that let’s improve our local economy and we do that by having the free flow of goods and people throughout the city and the bus and the bicycles sadly are not going to do the job people the vast majority want their vehicles it’s our job to accommodate that that’s why we’re here and the people are telling us loudly and clearly I hear about it all the time wonderland road goes straight through the heart the middle of the ward I represent Southwest London needs wonderland they use it on a continual basis and to have it more often than not like a parking lot does nobody any good and least of all the environment all you have is idling cars so let’s open it up let’s focus on what has to be done my general critique of the MMP is basically it’s not strong enough for vehicles it’s it’s relying almost on faith that bicycles and buses are going to pick up the slack and and help relieve congestion that’s not going to happen that’s not the reality thank you chair thank you Councillor van Mirberg and Councillor Pribble thank you have a couple of questions excuse me sir the chair to the staff on page on the slide 7 when it says wonderland for general purpose lanes and throughout the transit lanes it states vehicle travel time is 25 minutes and transit travel time 32 minutes so the seven minutes difference or longer I assume they will be based on the stops if you can please confirm that if that’s the only delay that they would be because that’s point one and point two if it’s based on the stops how do we determine the time that the time that we get to the 32 minutes thank you miss Grady through the chair there’s a number of factors that are looked at as far as the transit travel times along the corridors in a situation when it’s six general purpose lanes for example buses would be stopping on the near side of an intersection would often have to wait an additional light signal or phase to get back into traffic so that adds to their travel time versus if it was a dedicated translate they’d be able to pull up and get through that first signal phase if a bus does have to stop on the far side of the intersection again it can cause them to be not only stuck on the near side of the intersection for a phase but often they can get stuck on the next side the intersection for longer as well if there’s congestion on that side and buses re-entering from traffic bays is also much more of a challenge in congested road conditions when they have to find a chance to merge in with general traffic it’s it sounds like a maybe a small little bit but it does add up quite a bit when you’re looking at over nine kilometers in total and that’s that some of the factors that that feed into the transit travel times Council approval thank you for that part and second follow-up question on the right side of the page six general purpose lanes and as stated before we are going from 25 minutes to 20 to 23 minutes so if we add on additional lane north south south north we are we are saving only two minutes is it based on a certain model or how is it determined that there’s only two minutes savings time thank you Ms.

Grady to the chair so these numbers are derived from our modeling so there’s an input of achieving our mode share target which is applied to all the various trips one thing that the model does do in respond to is based on the condition is it doesn’t form induce demand to a degree so if you add additional traffic lanes that actually does attract more people to use that corridor in personal vehicles so it increases the number of the amount of demand on that corridor versus if you have a rapid transit solution it actually increases the mode share of people taking transit and in reduce of the demand on personal vehicles along there those are just some of the the things that are incorporated into modeling but there’s a lot of different factors that are considered Councilor Pribble thank you and the last question if I go with the model three and three and you said that again it it gets the people to use it more frequently more often but doesn’t that with a common sense doesn’t it elevate the pressure from other streets because then if we don’t have the three and if there is a big traffic then these cars they will select other streets cutting through the areas through the residential areas etc because these cars they will be going somewhere isn’t it that bottom line is if you have the three and three only two-minute savings but doesn’t doesn’t it alleviate pressure from other streets it’s great through the chair I’m modeling actually shows that on a parallel corridor so sanatorium and bowler for example there actually is capacity available so it’s not actually there’s not actually more traffic being attracted to Wonderland and either scenario the reality is that people are choosing to use Wonderland despite the fact that there is a capacity available on adjacent corridors and again when you’re adding those additional traffic lanes it just encourages that many more people to use Wonderland which appears to be the preferred route for some Council approval and therefore if it encourages for people drivers to take Wonderland therefore naturally it would eliminate the pressure from other streets and roads and my is my option correct Ms. Grady so I threw the chair just to clarify are you are referring to local streets or are you referring to adjacent parallel major roads Council approval thank you sir actually both because again if people see the traffic they start either cutting through the neighborhoods or kind of making a plan B plan C and they started cutting through so going with your comment that if we have three and three it encourages drivers to take the Wonderland so if there would be the case that encourages them to go to Wonderland I would assume it decreased the pressure from any other streets neighborhoods etc is my assumption accurate is Grady through the chair it may relieve some vehicular demand on other corridors widening Wonderland however I would say the more significant impact is that it makes travel by a personal vehicle in some sense the only viable option so it actually makes more people want to drive using personal vehicles rather than take transit when we did some detailed analysis of Wonderland a lot of the trips along Wonderland actually start and end very close to Wonderland so they are less likely to go out of the way for travel but it’s one of the reasons that a transit solution is a very good alternative because those trips start and so close to Wonderland Thank you sir chair no more questions thank you for answering those and it was just really I’m a supporter of the public transportation it was just kind of if we take this route I just wanted to know the answers but do I think that our future needs to be built on public transportation absolutely thank you for other speakers Anna sorry Councillor Hopkins thank you mr. Chair for recognizing me and I’ll just speak to the first part of the motion thank you Councillor van Mirberg and for reminding me of the community meeting that we had at Civic Gardens a number of years ago on should we or should we widen Wonderland Road and I didn’t support it last time but through that conversation at the community meeting we started to talk about other opportunities of moving around like transit so I won’t be supporting this motion and the first with Wonderland the widening of Wonderland I want to thank staff for all the work that you’ve given done and the information that you’ve given us it’s really important when I see these numbers of if we go from four lanes with two transit lanes to six lanes exactly what does that mean and when I see these numbers that it transit travel is 32 if we go six lanes it goes to 63 minutes it almost doubles the time and I want to just a take note of mr. Wallace’s comments around transit and we do need a working system I represent Ward 9 it’s all about development it’s all about creating opportunities to move around if we have a system that does not work no one’s gonna use transit and I hear loud and clear from residents that are moving a lot of new Londoners that move into Ward 9 they cannot believe that we do not have opportunities and to me this is a wonderful opportunity with a growing city a changing city that we start to allow opportunities for people to move around not just with their cars so I’m confident I’m gonna stay with my vote that I made a number of years ago there’s funding available for transit opportunities there that we as a city can take advantage of so as much as I appreciate the word counselors for bringing this forward it allows us to have this conversation and I want to thank you for that Councilor Ferrero thank you chair I don’t want to say too many comments that have already been said but I do need to kind of just walk through this so kind of looking at the report I do see you know currently right now we have four lanes on Wonderland and I think the current time is 24 minutes for car travel and then with the proposed six general lanes just from the report as well as was said so I don’t want to get too redundant but it’s reducing it down to 23 minutes for car travel and that would be adding two extra lanes and just not even speaking on the transit corridor component itself just speaking on those two lanes the difference of two minutes saved for the amount of money that we would put into that is not enough for me it’s not significant at all I would like to know how much do we have any estimates on the amount of adding six lanes and I do understand Council Hopkins kind of made this point but we wouldn’t get any public funding for that so it kind of most likely be all from the municipal coffers but how much would that extension to four lanes to six lanes for vehicular traffic only or the high occupancy a high occupancy lanes how much would that be Ms.

Grady through the chair our preliminary estimates indicated would be in the order a magnitude of 400 million don’t suffer thank you so 400 million for two minutes saved that’s I right right there not even talking about the rapid transit corridor piece of it I would say that’s a non-starter for me because it doesn’t make sense two minutes if it was I don’t know half the time maybe but two minutes is just not enough so speaking about the rapid transit corridor portion itself as well you know we have our mode share targets that we want to hit you know we have our greenhouse gas emissions we want to hit we want to obviously mitigate traffic and congestion because I know it’s really bad there and it’s it’s understandable and I do hear some of the comments you know like is our transit system down I haven’t seen those numbers but you know I’m going to make a little baseball quote here the field of dreams one of my favorites if you build it they will come that’s exactly what’s going to happen here if we build the transit corridor people will use it especially if it is competing with the travel time for vehicular traffic so on top of that with the public funding that would be available for rapid transit corridor if that would reduce our costs significantly and just kind of looking at the numbers and what we have with this report and from the I guess staff’s analysis I think it’s pretty clear that adding six lanes for two minutes to the tune of four hundred million dollars is not a good idea so I wouldn’t be in support of this motion we’re only speaking about that item for the motion right now right okay so I won’t go on for the other ones but I would say this is just a non-starter right off the bat that’s just way too much money for two minutes of time and in the end as was said already you will attract more people to use cars and actually the congestion will get worse we have a lot of data out there that shows that moving towards the rapid transit corridor you know I don’t want to pit transit riders and have give them a choice or not give them a choice to say you know or do you want to take public transit or you want to drive 60 minutes increase that is very significant that you would see the increase if you didn’t have those rapid transit lanes that 32 minutes compared to 25 minutes that is competitive people will be incentivized to use our public transit if we have these lanes and you’ll also see the congestion of traffic actually reduced to I wouldn’t be surprised if vehicular traffic time would be less than 25 minutes you might even get the exact result that you’re looking for for the six general purpose lanes if we go with the six lanes plus including two rapid transit corridors and it would be paid for so for me I won’t be in support of that just because of that thank you Councillor Ferra Councillor Stevenson I have you next thank you I just wanted to quickly say thank you to my colleagues for bringing this forward and I hear a lot about traffic congestion in the city and how long it takes to get from one end of the city to the other and anything we can do to alleviate that I am happy to support thank you Councillor Stevenson Councillor van Mirbergen you had asked to go a second time you’ve got a minute and ten seconds I also have Councillor ramen who hasn’t spoken yet so I’m wondering if you are willing to yield till Councillor ramen’s okay we’ll come back to you then I’ll keep you on the list at the end but I’m gonna go to those who haven’t spoken first so Councillor ramen I have you next thank you and through you chair so I first want to start by thanking staff for their work on the MMP and their willingness to engage with the residents what I personally witnessed was City Hall at its best and that was when we were engaging with residents out in the community having meaningful conversations so I just wanted to start by saying thank you with respect to the motion I actually just want to read out the motion if that’s okay so the motion reads the civic administration be directed to restart the discover Wonderland Road EA with expanded limits from Southdale Road to Fanshawe Park Road in order to construct sixth general purpose through lanes along the corridor with a build and convert option to bus rapid transit and that the estimated cost of this work be used in the creation and prioritization of projects in the 2028 development charge background study so why this language is important I think is it’s important to acknowledge that we’re looking at something a little different so first I want to start with the guiding principles from the MMP I believe that this alternative supports those guiding principles and I want to speak to one part of that we say that Londoners of all identities abilities and means will have viable mobility options to allow them to move throughout the city and it is with this in mind that I’m bringing forward this amendment alongside Councillor Layman this is the first time as a committee of council we are discussing the maps that were put forward in December 2024 and since that time I know I’ve engaged in many conversations with residents through consultations that Councillor Layman and I held in our area and throughout this time and even sorry this past weekend doing some door knocking in the area as well and I want to be very clear that what’s in front of us today is different than what we’ve considered because here we have an option to do something unique it’s a bit of a and or it’s a bit of not an and or but the in between I think for us where we have opportunity right now is we have the opportunity to invest in this area as we’re doing infrastructure upgrades in this corridor between Gainesboro Knoxford anyways growth related pressure and increased demands with limited capacity is what people are facing right now and we have a way to help them to get out of that the language in this motion is purposeful because we are proposing a unique path forward expand the lanes for users whether transit or car do it in a way that allows for future use for BRT limits throwaway costs and builds ridership when ridership grows set a target to finish this conversation working with our federal and provincial partners discuss this unique approach to address our needs now and into the future and seek funding opportunities that do not limit our community but expand our ability to meet needs we’re talking about two things here we’re talking about how we get people on to transit the modeling here it’s not looking at what we’re talking about right now we’re talking about what if we had both the six conventional lanes but later on before 2050 had the alternative and so to say well it’s 63 minutes it doesn’t consider this alternative so I think that we have in front of us an opportunity to move forward the EA process allows us to get further information it doesn’t let us presuppose an outcome as to what that information provided will will lead us to in terms of the decision but allows us to put forward ideas and considerations or sorry allows the the process to consider different alternatives and look at options we are hearing a lot about cost and people saying well I’m not going to consider this because of cost but again we have opportunity if the Guilambardo bridge is not feasible we’ll find that out through this process if there’s other issues with you know the CN rail separation or sorry overhead bridge then there are things that we will figure out through that process so the EA process is an opportunity for us to continue this conversation which I know my residents really want us to have thank you Councillor ramen looking for anyone who hasn’t spoken yet Mayor Morgan yes I have some questions I’ve got Councillor Trussow thanks chair I have some questions based on what Councillor ramen said because I’ve heard some colleagues talk about content of the report and the comparison of the two options I hear the explanation about the desire to try to do both expand use for general traffic but future proof for the expansion of the rapid transit system has contemplated in the MMP and so what I don’t understand is like how do we do that and what does that actually look like and I don’t know if our staff are able to comment but for me it’s like it’s almost like I don’t actually have that piece of information in the report because I’ve got the comparison of the two alternatives I don’t have the kind of the blending of them and how that would work like can you actually build out traffic lanes in a way where you you can easily convert to a bus rapid transit system and with the EA process as the Councillors are contemplating give us more answers about what that would look like what the cost would be before we need to make a final decision so I don’t know that’s a kind of a lot for our staff to comment on but kind of looking for some guidance on like how does what Councillor ramen and Councillor Lehman are intending here actually work in in process and when would we actually have to make a final decision on which way to go with those two pieces I think we’re going to Mr. McCrae if I’m reading the body language correctly in the back row there Mr. McCrae yeah thank you through the chair the Wonderland Road EA has a certain amount of information this would introduce another alternative that would consider what the infrastructure would look like and there would probably be a couple of options within that as far as the amount of infrastructure that would be built for the conversion from six general-purpose lanes to then taking two of those away and converting them to bus only lanes so you know I think we would look at you know we just assume a certain time horizon for that conversion see what the costs are and then decide whether that should happen up front or in the longer term so the a could could delve into that in the near term we we need to set up the funding for the project given the the DC 28 DC window is is infrequent and needs to be set this year so the the motion clarifies what the assumption would be for for the project which would be a general six lane widen which I think that that informs us enough to know how to position the project and consider if external funding is appropriate or not Mayor Morgan yeah thank you and through the chair so if I understand correctly what you’re saying is the EA would then consider both of these options and could return a you should just go with doing the bus rapid transit off the bat or yes it makes sense to do six lanes of traffic and a conversion at you know the 15 year mark or whatever it is so is I just want to understand that is that the type of information we would get back through the EA with this sort of addition to it and then my second question is I know you need to make the assumption within the 2028 development charges background study given the the context of this motion with the background study include funding for both that would be able to cover essentially a portion of the costs of both set up and the conversion at whatever point in time that would make sense or will we be kind of underfunding the allocation in the DC fund with the six lanes because it wouldn’t cover a conversion at some point in the future depending the results of the EA of course miss share through you mr. deputy mayor my expectation is we would put into the DC background study the full cost of the six laning for general purpose traffic which is probably are out of the two options we’re discussing the highest cost scenario because there’s no opportunity for cost avoidance by using huge unplanes at pinch points and because we believe that traditionally funding has been for those sorts of infrastructure projects that support transit we do not have a number we could put in the DC background study that would cover the additional cost of future lane conversion so that work at this point would be unfunded and the timeline would not align to have that number prepared in advance of the conclusion of that study we’d have to make some sort of adjustment in the future that said it’s unlikely to do that work within the scope of the next DC background study if or the intent would be to either provide rapid transit lanes or dedicated or general purpose traffic lanes in the shorter term it’s unlikely the conversion to a future rapid transit lane should we build GP would happen until some time further out we would probably have an opportunity to go back and adjust Mayor Morgan and just the other part of my question about what the EA would return like can it return the option to say we looked into kind of this contemplated do one and then convert to the other some point in the future and say no actually this part it makes more sense to do it this way like the able will return options and then a recommended option like I just I’ve seen lots of EA’s just trying to figure out how this motion what you expect to produce as the options knowing that the recommended option is a function of the process.

Mr. Chair. The short answer is that’s exactly so the EA cannot presuppose an outcome as we go into the process while the motion itself speaks to expanding now for GP and ultimately converting those to RT we need to do the RT option as well to price out that conversion so we have to implicitly look at RT only GP and convertible to future RT so those would all be part of the process and we would bring that back to council with a recommendation that comes through the EA process but that cannot be presupposed. Mayor Morgan okay so I’ve heard the debate and it seems to me like from my perspective based on the answers I’ve heard we’re not going to lock ourselves in to a certain path at this point in time as was just said the EA has to consider the rapid transit option only has to consider you know the other options and then it can consider this particular option we can get all the information and we can determine that I know we will restrict the DC background study but depending on when we build it we can actually update that in one of the the DC updates so given the answers that I’ve heard I have less concerns about proceeding this way because it seems to me like the ward councils are looking for an option that might be flexible and that there’s an opportunity in the future to actually make the final decision based on the results of the EA which you know I can I could be more comfortable with and if I’m missing something this is the time that I need to know it because I don’t like to make assumptions I like to know exactly what I’m supporting Council Truso thank you very much through through the chair at the bottom of page 45 in the top of 40 page 46 you have four very significant bullets and I think these four bullets really summarize very strongly and very succinctly why we should not be proceeding with this project and reading this report my gut reaction was I was going to be against this but reading this report has really helped me to understand what has come before the positive work that’s been done in this community on this issue and the continuity that your your methodology is is providing I think it would be reckless at this point it would not be founded at this point to proceed with with the amendment and the and I think quite a bit has been said about the first bullet which the summary is it would return to a it’s just a costly very costly short-term solution I think is the way I summarize that first bullet and then in the second bullet which I think other Councillors have asked about we talk about the time savings I hear I hear people here saying we got to get people around the city quicker and this will do it well according to this it won’t and unless unless the proponents of this motion want to offer some type of discussion as to why your methodology in your modeling was flawed which I have not heard yet I’ve not heard anybody suggest it I I think that there is not adequate grounds to attack the recommendations that are in these bullets in favor of the motion that’s on the floor now the third bullet talks about the larger budget impact and we just we just can’t dismiss that on the grounds of well don’t worry about the budget impact because we’re gonna get money from senior levels of government a lot of this is gonna be capital and it’s not gonna go in the levy anyway I think we have to take this very seriously and you make the claim here that based on the eligibility parameters of the historical senior government infrastructure funding programs this this is not necessarily going to be as easy as transit programs could you expand on that point and I’m particularly talking about the third bullet miss share Councillor Tresau your mic thank you Mr.

Deputy Mayor and I can certainly start my colleagues may something to add there is no way to predict what future programs will be available from higher levels of government but with the combined I think a significant amount of experience particular the three of us at the table we have not seen funding historically for straight road widening particularly for congestion relief whether that could be a future piece certainly if my crystal ball was better it would be better for many things but based on our experiences applying for funding for these projects generally funding has been available for significant infrastructure supporting transit on a capital basis Councillor in the third bullet you also talk about the bottlenecks that would that would be an impediment to actually expanding this to the six the six lanes if you were so inclined and it talks about how the the the costs of these bottlenecks would add even more significant you know cost to the overall project could could I haven’t heard any rebuttal to that at this at this council table and I just want to make sure that this is a very solid claim that you’re making and what it was based on if you’d like to expand on it the bottleneck problem again I’ll I’ll start Mr. Deputy Mayor and my colleagues may add to this when you’re widening for rapid transit projects you have the ability to use Q jump lanes and avoid infrastructure expansion for costly structures in some cases when you’re widening for general purpose traffic clearly nobody wants to be in the Q lane they all want to be in the jump lane so you simply cannot do that a couple of significant products to this project which are factored into the cost already but could potentially be avoided under a rapid transit only scenario are the CN railway overpass which is significant it has to be bypassed and a new bridge built as well as the widening of the Guilain-Bardo bridge and the rail overpass to the north as well counselor thank you through the chair your fourth bullet talks about emergency service responses times would be longer in six lanes of general traffic could you expand on how you reach that conclusion Mr. Chair through you Mr. Deputy Mayor the use of rapid transit lanes by emergency service vehicles is generally unimpeded or minimally impeded because the only vehicles who are using those space especially when center running are buses when you emergency services have to combine with general traffic they’re reliant on drivers pulling out of their way which during congested times is not always feasible counselor in summary these four bullets present a very compelling and unimpeded so far account as to why we should we should not make this change and why this amendment should be defeated I would go further and say that there’s some additional points that could also have been raised not that you had to because I think you made your case but what about the increase in auto accidents the increase in injury the increase in pedestrian safety problems when you go when you when you increase the lanes oh what’s the other one emissions how is this going to increase emissions so I think that you could have gone on much longer about this but I think for purposes of this report you did it adequately do you and my feeling is I’m not gonna ask to defer this I’m ready to vote it down and I think it should be voted down but I think there is a overwhelming evidence in favor of this without even getting into those other issues and remember we’re supposed to be looking at this in our climate emergency we’re supposed to be applying a climate lens and I think I think you’re doing that in at least this portion of the report how much time do I have left you have 40 seconds left okay wonderland road is a textbook definition of a very problematic strode and there’s quite a bit online about strobes and I would encourage people to look at some of these videos a strode is a road and it’s also a street and it doesn’t work well as even as either we need improvements on wonderland road but this is not this is not the way to do it so I really want to urge I really I really want to urge my colleagues to vote no on on this on this motion I think as you know from my discussions with you through the chair I’ve had a lot of problems and criticisms with the with this with this report as it is so far but I really want to commend you on this section because you’ve demonstrated a very solid methodology which the proponents of an alternative have not impeached so I think this is an easy decision for us thank you thank you counselor counselor van Mirbergen I’ll I still have you on the list for a second time if you want to use your remaining minute 40 sorry minute 20 and then I would have counselor Frank back on the list as well thank you chair so I just want to confirm the MMP proposal as it stands is requiring the construction of a third lane on each side so six lanes it’ll be a six lane roadway the only difference from this motion is that it is strictly for a bus in the sixth lane so it requires the construction of two more lanes just like if we were to construct two lanes for general purpose so I just wanted to establish that fact when I hear comments from a few speakers ago that you know why would we want to spend so much more money we’re still talking about creating wonderland into six lanes it’s just that the one proposal is for buses for those extra lanes the other one is general purpose so the question is given that you have to construct anyway in general terms how much of a difference would there be in the construction cost between those two models a share thank you mr deputy mayor so if we’re not able to avoid any costs at pinch points such as at the bridges and there’s no federal funding or provincial funding available to transit the costs are relatively similar thank you very much I’d like to thank again so counselor I just want to let you know you have hit your time getting to that question you you stop here okay I think this is this is certainly the way to go and hopefully we have a positive outcome you answer Frank thank you yes I also hope we have a positive outcome but we might differ on what that looks like I am wondering through the chair to staff if we could explain the difference between what six lanes would look like for dress cars versus what four lanes then two lanes for beer two would look like specifically the construction elements and how it’s not the same as just putting two lanes for car traffic it’s greaty through the chair it would be a different design in a different cross-section for the two alternatives if you were designing for rapid transit the you would have to accommodate center running lanes and transit stations and the outside curbs we place in different locations so it would be a different cross-section and different design it wouldn’t be simply to convert from six general purpose lanes to rapid transit it would not just be a payment exercise if it was designed for six general purpose lanes and you wanted to convert it after the fact there would be a reasonable amount of throwaway costs and and redo and construction work Councilor Frank thank you and could staff perhaps estimate on construction timelines so for example if we were to move forward with this how long would it take to do six lanes and then if that was completed how long would it then take to convert two lanes to center running BRT lanes would that all be feasible to be done within 20 years by 2050 is greaty through the chair whether it’s six general purpose lanes or we widen for rapid transit lanes the estimated time to complete the preliminary design or transit assessment process which is like a streamlined EA would be perhaps in the order of 18 months property acquisition would be about 18 months for for both those options as well and then of course that getting funding aligned for it one thing that we did keep in mind when we were making the recommendations for phasing and one of the reasons why Wonderland was shown in the medium turn as we were being conscious of major parallel corridors being under construction at the same time and the plans have two major parallel corridors under construction in your term which was one of the major reasons why we did show it in the medium term but it could be completed earlier than that.

Councilor thanks and perhaps I’m just estimating that by the time we finish that for if we hypothetically just do six general lanes we probably if we want to convert them to be our T lanes we probably have to start almost immediately at the end of the construction of the six lanes having Wonderland Road under construction for years if not a decade I don’t think would probably improve traffic timelines. I’m also wondering if staff could comment on the suggestion that ridership could grow for for bus ridership if commute times continue to get worse year after year if buses stay in mixed traffic. I’m wondering if there’s any evidence that shows that ridership grows if commute times worsen. Through the chair improving transit travel times is one of the ways to grow ridership so if we aren’t making those improvements and investment in transit we are not encouraging more people to use that that that mode also if in Mr.

Wallace me this point earlier we’re all creatures of habit so if we don’t have those good transit services when people move to London or when they become of driving age they’re more likely to establish habits driving personal vehicle and perhaps purchase one and they’re less likely to change later if that’s when transit services come available. Mr. Frank thank you and one final question I’m hoping we can confirm through the chair to staff that we can use the existing development charges we’ve collected for Wonderland Road for BRT lanes. Ms.

Barbone is that you from the finance perspective or are we going back to Ms. Cher on that one. Thank you Mr. Deputy Mayor I always like to confirm with the treasurer just to make sure I don’t say bad accounting things yes where for the growth share of either project that would be DC eligible.

No Sir Frank thank you and just to summarize I appreciate all the answers to those questions and the work that staff have done for the MMP. I’m one of those people as was used the terminology earlier who flops onto bikes and buses but I also flop onto cars sometimes so as a bike and bus flopper also a car flopper I personally would like my commute times to be improved and I will be picking the option that improves my commute times no matter which option of flopping I choose. Thank you Councillor Frank so that exhausts my speakers list and I oh sorry we have okay Councillors if if we want to go a second time I can’t prevent folks from doing that up to their five minutes but I am hearing a lot of repetition now so I would encourage colleagues if it’s been said that perhaps you don’t need to say it again again you have up to your five minutes but we are now at 420 I suggested to folks at the start of the meeting that we would take a brief recess at 4 p.m. but we have been on this item for over half an hour so I’m just going to encourage folks to ask if they really need to go again or if they’ve made their commentary.

Councillor Pribble. Thank you. Good question for the chair to the staff and sorry if I missed it but do we have a scenario currently with the four lanes if you were to put a bus there what would be the transit to travel time? We have transit in the existing four lanes now Councillor are you suggesting are you asking if we took away two vehicle lanes?

No what is the current time but what is the current time? Well let’s go to Ms. Grady to see if she has that. Through the chair if we’re looking at current travel times an existing four lane cross section there isn’t actually a transit route that goes all the way from north to south right now but theoretically it would be about 63 minutes based on the same assumptions that everything else has been.

Okay thank you for that and based on this information and some other questions I had I will be certainly supporting the motion and it’s in front of us and I do want us to explore the additional lane for our public transportation. Thank you. Councillor Stevenson. You’re good okay I’m going to ask the mayor to take the chair briefly I’ll offer some short comments on this.

Yes I have the chair I will go to the deputy mayor. Thank you so I I want to come back to the question the mayor asked earlier and then spoke to which is we’re restarting an EA process we’re not locking ourselves in to anything at this moment I do want to know the options there’s going to be a cost but there is zero deniability that capacity demands on wonderland are going to continue to increase and I say that from the perspective of someone sitting on the planning and environment committee and looking at the developments that we have been improving in that corridor in the last couple of years and immediately adjacent to that corridor on Oxford the significant isam development next to Cherry Hill mall we’ve approved a number of 35 story high density residential buildings along the wonderland corridor and whether they are using private vehicles whether they’re using buses whether they’re going to be pedestrians on the sidewalks there is going to be a lot more people living along this corridor in the next 20 years as those shovels go in the ground and those towers rise up so for that reason alone looking not at where we are today which there are certainly some bottlenecks today but thinking about where we are going in the future and where that 47 000 homes target we have for our city has placed several thousand homes already I really think that we have to be looking at those because it will not be that long until people are starting to live along this corridor and needing to move around so I’m prepared to support the motion because I think we need all the cards on the table and all the options to pick from available as we think about where that density is developing along the corridor right I’ll let you know you have used one minute and 50 seconds and I have no one else on the list I intend to use no more and unless there’s anyone else who wishes to get on the list I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote sir purple losing the vote motion carries nine to six thank you colleagues Councillors we are in the midst of our mmp item Councillor ramen and and Councillor Layman have two additional motions but I’m going to look for a motion for a 10-minute recess everybody can grab a drink grab some snacks and the lounge come back but I see Councillor Hopkins willing to move that seconded by Councillor Ferreira so by hand 10 minutes that motion carries it’s 426 so please be back for 4 36 please so we can resume hey colleagues we’re going to resume our meeting and I’m just going to in consultation with the clerk bring us back to the main motion for a moment we dealt with one that’s one that was not entirely an amendment to a map in terms of its spoke to both transit and roads and so that’s going to be deemed as as a clause e to the main just in terms of how we structure this to move forward so before we move on because Councillor ramen and Councillor Layman do have another item they’ve indicated that they’re going to withdraw the second item that was in their communication but they do have a third item that they still want to advance however in order to dispense with that we’re going to deal with that as a clause f to the main motion so we’ll deal with that through this process so it’ll be an amendment to add a clause f later in the process we do need however to get the main motion on the floor we will deal with any amendments to the clauses then and as well you can make that amendment to put the clause f on the floor so we’re going to deem the clause that we just passed as e but i’m looking to see if i can get a mover and a seconder for the main motion which is to receive the the maps Councillor cuddy and Councillor hillier okay so that puts the main motion on the floor which is the four clauses that would approve the project maps a the roads map b the transit priority network map c the cycling network map and d the sidewalk gaps map just so we’re clear clause e has been added and deemed to have been voted on so we can now move i will come back to Councillor ramen now if you want to amend the motion to add a clause f we can deal with your next item thank you through you so what i look to put on the floor is that the mayor and city staff be requested to engage in discussions with neighboring municipalities in the province to work collaboratively on a ring road and integrated transportation network that would help to move people goods and services within and across the region and Councillor Layman you’re still seconding that okay so that’s been moved and seconded did either the mover or seconder want to speak to introducing its or i can go to a speaker’s list Councillor ramen thanks thank you yeah i’ll be happy to to speak to this ever since i’ve moved here many years ago i’ve heard discussions about the fabled ring road that was depending on who you talked to it presented twice and didn’t go through both times for whatever reason and with i think with a lot of longing and regret i’m from kitchen waterloo so everyone points to the expressway and they call the ring road is you know what is a ring road essentially it’s a it’s a higher speed access point to for those not wishing to go through into the city but to get around uh around the city without using um you know all the myriad of of roads within you know we you know i said when i heard this i heard it at the public participation meetings we were at many times and you know if you think about it um we’re three-fifths of the way they’re getting getting this in action we’ve got veterans on the east side we got four one uh on the south we have four or two on the south west why not consider um getting the fourth part of that with a north south uh route tying into the four or two you know we have the opportunity right now uh before we expand development all the way to the western side of our city border uh to consider this option because once that’s done um we’ll never get there we have a lot of communities around us um that are coming in the city just to get through our city down to the 401 or 402 um that’s putting more and more uh pressure on our infrastructure in our road system and i think that uh we should have this conversation um for sure it’s going to have to be uh the promise is going to have to be part of this conversation uh if you want if you i mean west outborn and to me seems a potential here uh as something can be considered um but how far north does it go to connect to what there’s a portion of land that are outside the city boundaries that would have to involve um you know neighboring communities uh which case the province would have to come into play and i think the province uh generally this type of discussion might want to uh well definitely should be a part i think of this um again this is a we’re looking at 20 25 years down the road this is what this discussion is uh if not now when do we have this type of discussion um and that’s what i want to see i want to make sure we don’t miss an opportunity and then 20 years now we’ll be spoke of the same way that people talk about 20 years prior uh about missing an opportunity on improving our transportation uh not only citywide but uh for the region thank you counselor layman i’ve got counselor hopkins next thank you and uh just before i make my comments i would like to have a better understanding uh of what we’re doing uh we’re just sort of uh supporting uh a recommendation to have discussions with our neighbors uh through you mr chair i do want to ask staff given the recommended perimeter road improvements will these continue uh will this um sort of um go go forward i i just don’t want this motion to sort of get in the way of um moving these improvements forward mr mccrae miss grady to the chair at if a ring road was explored it would not change our recommendations for the perimeter road improvements else or hopkins that’s what i wanted to hear because i am very supportive of the west elborn extension from the southern part all the way down to the 402 i would like to just say when i moved to london in the late 80s the council of the day after a 10-year conversation about the the ring road decided to shelve it and it was quite a contentious conversation back then um you know i’m a little bit cautious uh when i think back when i read articles in the free press and in fact when i did some research it was uh sort of such uh it made me think regardless if you supported the ring road or not back then we probably should have done it because we would be having a totally different conversation here today at council on how we move around the city um and i also think back then doing a bridge across the river from west elborn was probably a little bit easier to do back then than it is uh today but i’m okay with uh having those conversations um we can see the improvements not only on west elborn but sundale and uh veterans memorial parkway coming uh forward so um i’m all good with it thank you councilor hopkins other speakers councilor trussa through through the chair um probably a rare occurrence of where i’m disagreeing with council hopkins but i think i think what i want to say is um if if they’re localized improvements that are needed in one part of the city i think we can accomplish that low it’s like using like a very local anesthesia instead of like a general where you put someone under it i i can’t support this because this is this this is not framed in terms of what’s needed in a particular area as you just as you just did it’s it’s the whole thing um it’s said that this won’t cost the city much because we’ll be able to go to senior levels of government to get funding and we’ll have to ask them for that i’d like to suggest that we only have a limited advocacy capacity and i think that we have to be careful of adding too many things to the list of things we ask for um i think we should be very focused on how we approach the province in terms of what our needs here are in london regarding transportation and other issues and the the stamp report doesn’t go through the same level of bullet by bullet analysis as it did in the last one um it just it dismissed it um i i guess in retrospect i would have liked to have seen more more detail for for why this is not recommended but i understand that you you had to get your report out and you focused on the areas that were more important i don’t think there is a justification that’s been stated other than historical we should have we should have done this twenty thirty years ago uh am i okay i thought people were gonna um yeah so i i don’t feel as strongly about this as i do the last one or the uh one of the other ones that’s gonna come up but um i just don’t think that we should be putting this on the table we approve these april first these go into the long-range plans of what we’ve sort of said we want to do um and they take on a life of their own and if we need to do some improvements in on the west side let’s let’s talk about doing them but the frameness in terms of a ring road that’s going to wrap itself around the city that’s going to be a multi-jurisdictional project i i say absolutely not let’s be precise about what we need to do and let’s not just put everything off to the don’t worry about the money because we we can always lobby senior levels of government we have a limited advocacy capacity and i don’t think we should put in we should be putting any resources into this project thank you thank you councilor trussle i have councilor stevenson next thank you when i was knocking on doors in ward four the summer of 2022 the two things i heard the most were we should never have closed the lph or the lennon psychiatric hospital and we should have built a ring road i heard it over and over again so i will happily support this and i appreciate my colleagues for bringing it forward also mccallister thank you and through the chair um yeah i think this is one of those things um i think we’ve all heard about the ring road uh i feel like you can’t be a londoner if you haven’t talked about the ring road um i think uh it’s worthy of the discussion i particularly like that we’ll engage with our surrounding municipalities uh i think it was a counselor layman of peck who said you know we can’t charge a toll but i think we can have a better integrated network in terms of getting around the city and if we can partner with regional municipalities i think that’s a worthy discussion to have um i actually i’m kind of excited about this i feel like i’m breaking a bit of a curse that time and time again i’ve heard should have done the ring road so i think we get to be part of that next chapter and hopefully something good will come from this so i’m curious to see where this goes i think it’s a worthy of advocacy to counselor trasso’s point i think this is something where actually a number of our neighbors would get behind us well because i think they’d be curious to see where it goes thank you thank you counselor mccallister i would just caution as a Leafs fan there’s a curse there too and when you mention it you don’t get any further along so um just a caution there and we’ll go to counselor pribble next thank you and uh the first i’m going to make it commented i hundred percent agree with my full counsel trasso that based on the last election results we have very limited capacity with the province so i do agree with them in terms of this what’s in front of us uh i think it’s exploring our opportunities and maximizing them and therefore i will be very much support of it it’s not saying that we are going to do it but we are exploring our opportunities and i think that’s what it’s about and then when it comes the right time that’s when we make the decision thank you thank you counselor pribble i have counselor ploza then mayor morgan then counselor for era counts and then counselor vane mereberg and counselor ploza thank you mr chair um through you um looking to see if this motion also um as it’s our master mobility plan and if we’re looking for joint funding from other municipalities or we’re just building stuff that’s going to service their residents as they avoid potential city and land and businesses like when we do advocacy is it like joint money coming for the area that’s going to help facilitate this infrastructure that’s going to need to be built and then have a life cycle renewal uh yes although i generally um discourage cross debate i think counselor roman uh as the movers best position to respond to that thank you um and through you i think this is where the province can really step in and play a real role in funding something like this as it has regional impact counselor ploza thank you um not really a fan of ringroads i appreciate people trying to get around the city um research that i’ve been doing is showing that it’s really just a city bypass and as we build this it drives development and intensification to the outer rings of the city sprawling development leapfrog development gaps in infrastructure and building i also recognize that we’re doing our or reviewing our urban growth boundaries as well that might tie into part of this just really mindful as we’re trying to promote infill intensification lower servicing costs with keeping things within the borders that this potentially will just push it to the outer rim thank you mayor morgan yes so that i appreciate uh the motion that colleagues before that’s asking me and civic administration to engage in discussions with the enemy municipalities in the province uh my my suggestion back is if the council wants to go this way um i would suggest that we probably shouldn’t have a lot of desire to put significant highway structure on the municipal books that we would have to build and maintain and plow at a time when the province seems to be willing to upload highways and municipal infrastructure to the provincial government and so although you know there’s a discussion that could be had with neighboring municipalities to see if they’re even interested in this i think the engagement with the province is really a ministry of transportation assessment about whether they think that you know a provincial highway that links around the north of the city is is most appropriate or at least something that the province would be fully responsible for whether they take over some of our municipal roadways that we part of it or construct a new one i think that’s a much better position fiscally for the city um and would align with what the province has been engaging with other municipalities on whether it’s Toronto or Ottawa or other conversations they’re having across the province on the provincial transportation network because as was mentioned would probably be end up being a corridor for commerce as well as movement of people so i’m not saying that that means it’s a good idea or a bad idea i think there’s a discussion that can be had there seems like there’s a willingness of this council to have the discussion i know actually some municipalities in the county are actually interested in having that discussion of moving their people around as well but i think we would want to focus on engagement with the province about them doing their own assessment about the provincial transportation network and how such a thing would integrate in with that and and their willingness to build it own it and maintain it would be a better position for the municipality to be in now i know the motion doesn’t preclude that but you know that’s that’s the direction that i would want to go with on it if council was to to direct me to go and have these engagements thank you mayor morgan um i have a speakers list councilor trust how i can put you on it um but i’ve got councilor for our next and then councilor vin mirebergen and then we’ll come back to councilor trussa councilor for thank you chair um so this one i approach with some curiosity for sure like if this was a motion to say put in a ring road i would say no right now um especially considering you know what we saw saw in the documents uh in the reports i think it was like 500 million that means we’re going to be well over a billion dollars uh in today’s money especially with any type of um acquisitions or uh expropriations we we might might need to do um but you know with that provincial piece kind of looking in here and kind of right now i just see this as you know you’re engaging with discussions with neighboring municipalities in the province to see what’s feasible what’s not so my curiosity will kind of get the better of me and i will support this as it is it doesn’t mean that i’m going to support a ring road it just means that i would like to see what information we can get out of something like this um i do kind of hear other colleagues in their concerns with uh i guess um the amount of time available for uh different advocacy efforts um i i would think that this one wouldn’t be super prioritized just knowing that we have other big things on the table and this one would take a while but just kind of with the discussion that it is with the mayor and staff going out to engage the neighboring municipalities in the province to see what’s possible i would i would think that this would come back to council there would be a discussion and we can actually have a uh thorough debate at that point so if you know if i don’t like what i see then at that point i would make the final decision but like i said my curiosity is going to get a hold of me on this one so i will support this motion as it is right now. Councillor van mierbergen thank you chair um i’m very supportive of this motion we missed the opportunity 50 years ago let’s not miss it now uh my father-in-law was on council for many years and he tells me that the province was uh offering 85 financing but the uh prevailing view of the council of the day at that time was um uh what’s what should we say uh London was a village not a city so we don’t need a highway so it went to Kitchener and layman got to use the benefit of it at at our expense so again i think uh it’s the opportunities presenting itself let’s uh let’s not miss the boat on this one so i’ll be voting yes and Councillor trussow and i’ll know you’ve used three minutes so you’ve got two left thank you um the question i’d like to ask i don’t know if it’s it’s through the chair in any event but it’s to the staff or to the mayor that does not put in this in the mobility master plan this year preclude some discussion with the other jurisdictions at a later time or precluded discussion with the province because i i think the fact that this is an extra territorial uh beyond just London puts it puts it in a different category i think by voting is down we are not precluding a particular project coming up later and if i’m wrong about that i’d like somebody to tell me because i what i hear a lot of people saying is well you know just because we approve this now doesn’t mean we have to do it and try it to like it or i’m curious it’s it’s like we put this in our mobility master plan and we’re saying that this is this is something we want to do the whole thing the ring road and we’re going to be expending resources on not when getting there so if that’s if that if that question is not out of order could could someone respond to it so Councillor i’m actually going to respond from a procedural process um and the answer is that there wouldn’t be anything pre precluding this coming forward later as a stand alone um item um i think it’s been raised as part of the master mobility plan because of feedback heard by the residents but i to your question um like anything council’s rarely precluded from bringing something forward in the future um that may have a variety of different things on it of course there’s the decided matter piece that would delay things for a minimum of a year um but otherwise there would be nothing that i’m aware of um i’m going to make sure that the clerks are giving me the knowledge procedurally um nothing would preclude that um thank thank you very much that that’s what i thought but i just wanted to just get that just get that out there um so i’m still going to be voting against this um there that which doesn’t mean there are other things we can’t be doing on an extra territorial basis so thank you thank you very much thank you Councillor Frank thank you and i agree with many of the points that Councillor Ploza already made so i won’t be speaking to those um but i am wondering through the chair to staff if um the ring road for design or construction would need to be put into the 2028 d.c or this wouldn’t um for staff’s hand to include any estimates in the 2028 d.c planning miss share thank you mr. deputy mayor i know this is the direction strictly here is for staff in the marriage of engaging conversations with the neighbors and with mto so there would be no expectation that we would even start design or construction it’s likely extra municipal and would require direction from council at a future date Councillor Frank thank you yes and i won’t be supporting this because i’d prefer to continue to press the province on better regional transit funding and i also agree that we have limited advocacy uh opportunity so i won’t be supporting this today thank you i’m no one else on my speaker’s list i do have Councillor ramen um uh Councillor i’m wondering if if you might uh allow me to go first and then as you that way you have a wrap-up sort of as most others have spoken Mayor Morgan can i ask you to take the chair please yep just give me one sec go ahead deputy mayor thank you i promise you won’t actually need the timer because i’m not going to be that long um i i’m keenly aware of the fact that we can only advocate on so many things on time however i think we’ve got a really clear indication from the province last fall with bill 212 um introduced and some provincial uploading already happening around some of those costs and working on highway expansions that now is the time where they’re interested in this and so i think now is the time to have that conversation with them so i’ll support this all right i have no one else on list yet although i think Councillor ramen would like to get out at some point yes and i did have Councillor ramen on my list uh so Councillor ramen i will go to you now yeah thank you and through you and i’ll keep my um my comments brief as i know many of the points have been mentioned already but i will speak to two things one when we talk about advocacy and we talk about um advocacy to the province i think we’re in a really good position right now in terms of an election just happened uh and setting the stage and part of that work that we do as council is helping to inform the MPPs in our community as to the priorities that were shared with us through this process and the decisions that we make here so uh i understand there might be some hesitation around what what that looks like what we’ve heard from um from folks is that they want to have this discussion and know where the possibilities are and a lot of this also has to do with integration into our priority network anyways um where we have opportunity to uh as Councillor ramen said build out around a long west del bourn look at how we move in that corridor ensuring that roundabout says we’ve said in the the m&p are preferred ways of moving through our intersections so that that we can maintain speeds but also um so that there’s there is that ability to have that linkage um this is one of those opportunities i think that we have to set tone and direction and that’s the intent here and so for that reason this is in front of you thank you Councillor ramen i’ve no Councillor plosa sorry mr chair how much time do i have you actually have four minutes lucky you guys you need to use them all but you have four minutes uh just always grateful for the conversation just respond to a few things i’ve heard throughout it that um i’m fine losing a vote certainly won’t be the first or the last one tonight i’m sure but my concerns also are of where the council’s priorities are um realizing it’s the mobility plan and the more focused effort staff time that’s limited and advocacy that’s limited that we put into a motor transportation that only serves one group of residents be in those who are privileged enough to have their own personal automobile um that’s part of my concern i also got to use the highway seven eight bypasses in Kitchener was in enjoying that um and when i lived in Kitchener at the time was excited for the their boss rapid transit which become lrt to be rolled out and that took when my son was born and now he’s back there at university so we’re looking at decades even if you’re focused in building stuff out and it’s the public transportation that’s serving them now and certainly the seven eight and all their highways as much as they were excited when it opened it was back to the conversations of induced demand you opened it it was a cut through it was fast it got full you expanded it got full you expanded it um now they’re just massive highways coming through the city so just highlighting that as we think we might be solving one problem looking to address it we very well might be causing another thank you councilor plosa and you did not use your full four minutes uh i don’t have any other speakers on the speakers list so unless someone wants to go i’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote and seeing no other hands will ask the clerk to do that housing the vote motion carries 12 to 3 thank you colleagues so now we have had additional clauses e and f added to the main motion we are back to the main motion though we still have the four original maps um has presented by staff so this time i’m going to ask councilor ramen to take the chair because i’ve circulated an amendment as well thank you i have the chair go ahead thank you madam presiding officer so colleagues there’s um lots going on in this master mobility plan i am very excited to see some uh interchanges proposed for veterans memorial parkway on the roads maps i am uh also excited to see the potential for an at-grade crossing to be addressed on clerk road in the future i know we have lots to do with the railways before we deal with that but uh excited to see that that is on the plan um my concern and it’s very localized specific to my ward is my desire to make an amendment to the cycling map um and there are three proposed connectors that i have uh asked to have an amendment uh that the cycling network maps be approved with accept the following proposed network additions the royal crescent east of clerk road to wexford have to admiral drive connection the sovereign road connection and the vancouver street from trifalgar street to wave l to be removed from the network cycling maps and look for a seconder to support that and then i’ll speak to the reasons why i have a secondary councilor cuddy thank you so uh there are several proposed cycling network additions in ward two on this map um there are uh some that um i’m quite happy to see brought forward with respect to these three though and i’m going to just focus on these three uh when i’m proposing the deletion of the addition on royal crescent um i think it’s very important to to state we have the wave l street protected bike lane literally one block north in terms of an east west connector uh there’s a proposal to actually extend that wave l bike lane around uh and up to dondas uh which is great and even this summer we’ll be making the connection to the argyle mall commercial hub uh as the the completion of the first phase of that bike lane royal crescent to wave l or the royal crescent um proposal literally goes in to a low density residential neighborhood we don’t have any commercial nodes along that network we have one school that will already be connected via the wave l bike lane and that is it uh no churches no commercial properties uh no even medium density it’s all low density these are quiet residential streets and i don’t think that we need to be designating a bike lane connection there it is just to me it’s it’s a redundancy given that we have one one block to the north uh the vancouver to between profalgar and wave l um i’ve heard very very clearly from the residents uh absolutely not um but the other uh reason that i i support them on this is between vancouver and hale we have a multi-use pathway through kwanis park that’s heavily used in the summer months bicyclists so if our reason to put in a bike lane on vancouver is that we need to do winter maintenance on it then let’s just do winter maintenance in kwanis park and let them continue to use that we don’t need this redundant pathway uh up vancouver street uh to the wave l bike lane there is already a connector right through kwanis park finally the other uh one that i’m asking to be removed is the sovereign road connection this is an industrial area it’s far from any residential developments and when you look at the other connector access to it it’s it’s really isolated it’s off on its own and the existing uh access by cyclists there are sherrows um it’s not really a protected cycling um way to get around and when we’re looking at the industrial uses that are out there i don’t think that it makes sense in investing uh in the cycling infrastructure project on sovereign road so i’m asking your for your support on those three to be removed the other proposals that are in ward two um including one up per street that will connect to fanchal college that makes some sense to me there are some others in there that also make sense but these three just for me aren’t necessary they’re redundant thank you uh you used four and a half minutes um i’ll look for other speakers on this got council frank and then council for eric go ahead council frank thank you um and i was briefly able to have a maybe a quick chat with staff about what the actual um construction and physical elements of these paths would look like and perhaps um through the chair to staff if we could have them explain what kind of facilities would be on them um because i would personally like to vote separately because there are some painted sherrows that i don’t mind getting rid of but uh on sovereign road there’s supposed to be potentially a designated painted bike lane and i would prefer to keep that so just perhaps for the rest of of council knowing what the actual types of facilities would be on each road thank you i’ll go to staff for that answer you through the chair um at the master planning level at the uh facility design or selection is a bit speculative but based on the knowledge of these corridors um the royal crescent waxford um it would be a you know it’s a low volume street it’s it’s primarily focused towards the uh to the east in the residential neighborhood and that would be signs and sherrows admirable admiral drive uh be similar um or with the potential for uh painted lanes sovereign road uh was uh anticipated to be painted bike lanes and vancouver would be uh just a shared facility so signs and sherrows so that was kind of the the master plan level uh scoping with more detailed plan uh if and when the projects would get implemented thank you council frank and thank you so the one that most interests me perhaps is sovereign road given it’s a a large stretch and it runs parallel to veterans memorial parkway i’m wondering is there any other um at least painted bike lanes or protected bike lanes that run north south in that area uh i do notice that i veterans memorial parkway has none and then i’m not sure if this industrial road won more to the west of sovereign road has any kind of protected bike lanes mr mccray man i can share just bear with us for one moment as we’re pulling up no problem i don’t expect everyone to know which bike lanes are on every street so take your time yeah thank you the uh you know it’s some of the rationale behind the creation of the cycling network is uh it’s a grid spacing so having a facility a bike lane within a certain distance from any location within the city uh judging by the map the um the sovereign road location doesn’t have a parallel north south route within close close proximity council frank thank you then with that information i’m happy to support the word counselor um in some of the sharrow painting options but i would like to vote separately because i would like to personally keep sovereign road as in north south uh painted bike lane option due to the the volume of industrial land there and the amount of jobs i do know that there are folks that bike to industrial facilities to work and so i want to make sure that they have a safe way to get there so i would be supportive of sovereign but the other ones i don’t mind voting um with the word counselor on that thank you um i’ll go to counselor for air next thank you presiding officer uh council frank stole most of the things that i was going to say i saw one clarification um i do want to separate the votes but for the royal crescent uh to wexford to admiral um just in the language of the motion i just want to confirm that’s the whole stretch royal crescent wexford and admiral that you’re proposing to remove i’ll go back to the deputy mayor lewis to answer that yes it’s a it’s a single route it just is a route that passes through three streets okay thanks that’s all i got uh uh uh other requests to also separate the the items on the vote thank you that request has been noted uh counselor hopkins should i have you next go ahead counselor frank asked my question that was efficient thank you very much um any other counselors on this item seeing none uh we’ve had a request to call these separately um and so i will look to the clerk to just confirm that we will do that and we’ll start with i’m just pulling a promotion on my screen again i’ll we’ll start with it the first part royal crescent east of clerk road to wexford avenue to admiral drive counselor van mierbergen counselor we’ve got the vote open so right now everyone’s voting posing the vote motion carries 13 to 2 look to open up uh b-next sovereign road counselor halyard posing the vote nine to six uh the last part of the motion part c vancouver street from trifelgar street to halyvel counselor pribble counselor trasao counselor pribble yes posing the vote motion carries 11 to 4 thank you i’ll return the chair to the deputy mayor thank you madam vice chair although the speed with which you got through that i feel like i should let you keep the chair um so moving on uh i know that counselor stevenson circulated by email today another amendment that she wants to make to one of the maps counselor stevenson thank you very much uh so in line with what the deputy mayor put forward i have a motion here that the cycling network maps be approved except the following proposed network additions here on street taylor street mcnay street and gamid street so that would be well see if i have a seconder do you have a seconder and counselor cuddy okay thank you very much um so for similar reasons um i’m bringing forward this this amendment along here on street there is already a cycling network available in the main street one below and one above there’s no connectivity needed there um similar to mcnay there’s already a pathway that goes up gamid street there is um a cycling path available just two streets over on barker and for haylor um there’d be no um it wouldn’t be going anywhere if we took out the here on piece did leave uh the one on rectory um assuming that there might be a lot of cycling to the bmo complex or to the western fair and ashland uh it does look like it’s part of the connectivity to the the uh cycling path below and above it so i’m hoping that colleagues will support me on this a lot of the residents do not want to see more they understand a few but they don’t want to see more going in when there’s already cycling paths uh on a street right close by they are concerned about the cost because it does cost us year-round maintenance uh the impact on the neighborhoods they lose street parking um a lot of people need that for uh visitors for renovations for personal support workers and they would like to see a higher usage on the current cycling paths before we move over and add more at both a capital cost and a maintenance cost so i’m looking for your support thank you Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Frank thank you um and could we have staff perhaps do the same exercises with the previous is outline what kind of facilities are in each road that would be up for discussion certainly we’ll go to mr mccray for that thank you mr chair on Huron street uh section Adelaide through Highbury would be uh likely protected bike lanes and then east of there would be paved shoulders Taylor Street envisioned to be either a shared facility or potentially painted bike lanes depending on the project design Mcnay street would likely be painted bike lanes and Gammage would likely be a shared condition so just signs and shadows thank you Councillor Frank thank you and could staff outline some of the current conditions so I thought I heard that there was already bike lanes on Huron but then it sound like bike lanes would be added on her and so I’m not sure and perhaps I’m as heard so I’m wondering if staff could outline along Huron here on at least what is the current um cycling infrastructure mr mccray through the chair I think uh there’s a short east west of Adelaide but I at this time I don’t believe there’s bike lanes on the rest of Huron east of Adelaide so Frank thank you um given that information I do think personally uh this section and these designs are a little bit different than the one that the deputy mayor proposed Huron I think is a very major road major facility and very very uncomfortable for cyclists to bike along um and I think that having at least protected bike lanes if not completely separated bike lanes would probably be of most value to ensuring that cyclists are protected as well as drivers so that they’re not having to go around and move around cyclists as they move along here on street and these connections through the neighbourhood I also see value of um just looking at the map it doesn’t seem like they have a lot of other opportunity in this area to get through um on bikes uh to go to north to tvp is available but would take significantly longer if they were trying to come back down um so I won’t be supporting these because I I think that cycling infrastructure is definitely needed in this area of the city and Councillor van maberg and Councillor Hawkins thank you chair I I can support um these motions for modifications but I don’t want to support the overall cycling plan but the way it’s worded um is it is it possible to change the wording so that you can support these modifications without supporting the entire plan so Councillor we uh the clerks and civic administration put some considerable thought into how to word this to amend the uh maps for the master mobility plan so my guidance to you on the process procedurally is support the changes but then vote against the whole thing when you get to actually approving part b as amended um so then you can refuse the overall map but then if it still passes you have at least supported the removal of those ones that you supported the removal of oh thank you for that and uh you have my apologies uh voted against your amendments but anyway apology accepted and Councillor Hawkins yeah thank you mr chair um I just want to be able to um speak uh on my vote here and maybe just to follow up on my previous vote I was very hesitant um I’m a big supporter of cycling lanes and in particular how we connect these lanes and they may not sometimes appear to us that they make sense but as we build out to the uh the next generation I I think they have to be there I I was okay with um not supporting a couple of the other um roads from Deputy Mayor Lewis in his ward and I wasn’t sure which way to go and I knew I was going to get myself stuck it seems like I’ve got a sidewalk conversation going on in my brain um when I start hearing from um my colleagues about what what to be in there and what should not be but when I look at the map for Huron and in particular um Taylor uh and hearing from staff that they are these are large areas I’m surprised that we don’t have any um bike lanes on Huron it’s a very narrow narrow street and the importance of having uh protected bike lanes is really important Taylor is quite large and so is Gam actually these aren’t small streets so uh as much as I appreciate hearing from the ward counselor uh about removing them I am supporting uh the um I won’t be supporting uh removing these bike lanes from the plan.

Thank you Councillor Hopkins I’ll just advise we’ve got Councillor Cudi and Councillor Pribble next on the speaker’s list and then Councillor Ferrer, Councillor Cudi. Thank you Chair and through you I think I can speak with some authority about cycling in the east end especially on Huron um during the summer I spent about two-thirds of my time in my ward cycling and I don’t use Huron because for the very reason it’s a dangerous road and it’s a very narrow road by the way I use cheap side and it’s a parallel road and it is probably one of the best roads and I’ll commend staff. Cheap side is excellent for cycling and thank you very much for creating it and I can move from you know from city hall to Stanford I can 12 minutes 15 minutes at tops and I can be in my ward and I can cycle home just as quickly you know we have a and again not to repeat myself but Chair we have a a really great uh bike route on cheap side and it is parallel it’s one street over from Huron and Huron um staff knows I’ve talked a little about it we’ve had some issues on Huron uh around St. Anne’s public school Mr.

McCrae knows it’s it’s it’s not set up right now for for a bike for an extra bike path and I think I think we’d be asking for for some serious pedestrian and uh cyclist issues if we created a bike path there at the moment and again the scenario that I’m very familiar with Chair I spent a lot of time out there on my bike in the summer time and as much as I’d like to see a psychopath on Huron I don’t think it’s feasible and I don’t think it’s safe thank you. Thank you Councillor Cutty and uh just before we go to Councillor Pribble uh before I ask the clerk to undertake too much work I just want to ensure that folks do want these pulled to be voted on separately because I heard some different opinions on some different ones but I’ll okay now I’m seeing all together so we’ll leave it all together Councillor Pribble. Thank you and I will support uh what’s in front of us as well one comment that I would like to do to the staff and I mentioned it before and if you look at the specific case as we heard from Councillor Cutty we have the cheap side and kind of right north of it of Huron we have the TVP and I really would like I always hear you know by the way I like to bike I love to bike myself I love I love it I do it between April and September but my bottom line is this I would like our TVP to be kind of like the hub and then from the from the TVP to be like the hub and spoke system and I always hear Europe Europe Europe but Europe if you have point A and point B Europe doesn’t get you there in this line no it doesn’t you go up and down up and down but they get you there safely and there’s the thing that when I look at this now for example the specific example we have the TVP and from the TVP it could be going down south as the spoke hub and spoke instead of doing this and I would like us to consider that and to really use TVP which is absolutely amazing it’s fantastic I’m I’m very sad that there are some Londoners that they don’t even know about it but it’s absolutely amazing and let’s use it in this perspective bottom line is I will be supporting what’s in front of us thank you Councillor Ferrera thank you chair I’ll be quick I you know I I was just going through this was just kind of circling the roads because I know this one rolled in a little bit late I would like to have a more description on to the reasons why we would be potentially removing these for my support like I did the deputy mayor gave good descriptions and I did have some time to mull it over so I did have time for that but at this time just without that extra additional information that I would need I wouldn’t be in support of this because I’d really want to understand the reasoning for pulling these ones out thank you Councillor Ferrera that is awesome my speakers listed the moment Councillor Stevenson thank you in an effort just to clarify that I did consult with Councillor Colleine cutting knowing that he does a lot of cycling there had he indicated that that was needed I would have supported it but it there are already great cycling lanes one road over and so building up the usage on that makes a lot of sense I don’t see why we would spend the money when we’re looking at the property tax rate increases that we are and the amount of construction that we have in our city that we would take on these extra projects right now there’s nothing precluding us from doing them in the future there’s not like that not being built into other things and there are cycling paths very in very close proximity so it’s for those reasons that I’m asking for the support on this because these are areas that are well served already and to reduce costs and the impact on the neighborhood in terms of construction and parking thank you Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Truss out please well I’m going to be opposing through the chair every one of these changes just like I did in ward two and I think I’m just going to be consistent here and I want to explain my thinking a network what does a network mean I think a network means that there are a couple of different ways of going from point A to point B and it’s not necessarily just one you know cheap side is a great street to drive on Victoria is a great street to drive on Region is a great street to drive on but I don’t see anybody saying the streets are redundant because they’re different ways of getting around why is it different with cycling it’s different with cycling because there’s a certain there’s a certain there’s a certain constituency that says I don’t want to lose my parking I don’t want to inconvenience my lawn care operators I don’t want to I don’t want to have that on my street I don’t want the maintenance I just think there’s a double standard there’s a double standard and don’t anybody make a point of personal privilege because it’s not anybody in particular it’s the public in general and the way this discourse is going we were talking about redundancy when we were talking about some of the other things and we weren’t talking about well there could be immediate costs to doing this we were looking out in the long run yet now that we’re talking about cycling and I guess in a few minutes I’m going to be a fine one to talk because I’m going to try to remove one of the cycling ones myself but but it’s and I’ll explain I’ll explain I’ll certainly explain why but I just I just think that when you’re dealing with these streets it’s okay to have redundancy and I’m not talking about building a big span through through an environmentally sensitive area which is what I’m going to address next but no I just can’t support the notion that we shouldn’t we shouldn’t include Huron Street in the master mobility plan because it might create a danger yeah it’s a very dangerous street and anything we can do to alleviate that a little bit even if there are better places for people to cycle I don’t think there’s a lot of harm in doing it and when you look at the relative cost for putting in a lot of these recycling trucks they’re not they don’t all have to be expensive capital costs and the problem I have with this map almost to the point where part of me wants to vote against it but I can’t because I like I like at least what’s there is it’s not a full blown out network yet if we had a full network I’d be a lot more sympathetic to some of these arguments that there’s redundancy in it but we’re nowhere near the point where we can start to say that cycling opportunities are redundant so I’m just as a matter of principle going to be voting against all these except the next one that will come up later Councilor McAllister thank you and through the chair just want to confirm because I’ve heard it said a few times in terms of you know the cost my my understanding was that this takes us to 2050 and that these projects are spaced out so I’m just wondering kind of similar to Councillor Frank’s question not so much about the type but in terms of the projects are these short near far in terms of when they would be put in for this Mr. McCrae Miss Grady I see both looking at the maps probably trying to zoom in but whoever wants to jump in when you’re ready yeah thank you through the chair correct it is of plan out to 2050 the improvements on in Huron Street are recommended within the short term horizon so within the 2025 to 2035 horizon the other streets I’d need a few minutes to check I think they are potentially in the longer term medium term to long term horizon.

Councillor thank you so through the chair appreciate that answer I think some of one of the things to keep in mind I think sometimes we were so we spent a lot of time looking at our own multi-year budget but I don’t I don’t want to tire hands in terms of the future you know 2035 even for near term like we’re looking 2050 for this plan so for me I think we do have to have that long-term vision I think sometimes this kind of reminds me of the the sidewalk debate we’ve had in previous committees and unless those things are you know immediate impacts I’m also keenly aware that neighborhoods can change population grows and so I’m not trying to tie the hands of certain neighborhoods I think we all have to kind of make our decisions in terms of where we think the growth is and what kind of options we want to present to residents so I just wanted to keep that as a reminder that you know it’s a long-term vision thank you Councillor I’ll go to Councillor Palosa just before I go to you Councillor Palosa I’m going to advise that we’re going to need to dispense with this item soon and then we’ll need a motion to extend past six Councillor Palosa thank you and with this conversation looking to not support it I know I support the ones some of the ones earlier on to Councillor Tresault’s points I’m actually not going to be asking for any removal of everything the Ward 12 so speaking from up with that angle in mind just as we move through these conversations into Councillor McAllister’s point we’re looking at 2050 through to staff realizing it it’s a plan some of this infrastructure special we’re talking about protected lanes might also be in conjunction with street reconstruction and realizing this council we’re done next year and new people to some degree will fill these seats we’ll realize in this direction of this council of whatever passes as we move through these sections over the decades to come would staff still flag a street reconstruction and if things change that we’re digging up anyways and it’s opportunity to put stuff in even though council 10 years ago might have said no that it might actually be warranted and needed or a different lens put on it going forward I just don’t want to stifle information for future decision makers well which one of the team wants to handle that one I think we’ll go to Mr. McRae first the intention of this plan purpose of it is to guide those future projects so if there is a reconstruction of a given street this would indicate whether cycling the infrastructure should be added to that project or not you know as this project ages maybe if it’s 10 years out you know we’ll probably be in the process of updating this plan at that point anyway but if there’s new information you know given that horizon that maybe something could be added but really the intent is that this this informs the design of future projects Councillor Palosa thank you for that realizing it is the city’s plan we’re looking and there are street reconstruction projects coming a lot of us have in fill and development coming in and even the streetscape might change drastically in some of those areas Councillor she spoke earlier Councillor Stevenson mentioned like the service of the roads we talk about wear and tear cycling uses a lot less wear and tear than cars do on our street and just would like to see more people use it well if we were driving on roads that really went nowhere we really wouldn’t be using them and I feel that is the same that we’re dealing with with the cycling map and the mass mobility plan for it of if I’m on my bike I’d like it to go on a street somewhere I know we have some cycle tracks that are one directional only per se so I’ll resource my other comments for later but they don’t get much more positive from here thank you Councillor Palosa looking for any other speakers seeing none then I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote closing the vote motion carries nine to six thank you colleagues I’m aware of two other amendments to master mobility plan items one from Councillor Hillier one from Mayor Morgan and Councillor Trussau that the council referred to we need a motion to extend Councillor ramen Councillor Hillier and we’ll get the clerk to load that and open it in the ascribe Councillor Palosa point of order sorry with this is there an end timer we just in extending it to midnight essentially I think procedurally it actually extends it to midnight so just making sure of what we’re doing there is no set end time it is a motion to extend past six so the sooner that we vote on things and move forward the sooner we’ll go home Councillor Stevenson closing the vote motion carries 14 to 1 Councillor Hill you have a motion that you’d like to move to make an amendment yes and thank you very much I will move the motion to see if I have a seconder and we’ll move forward from there that part a be amended with a new part X and reads as follows a the roads project maps be approved with the following amendments to the road projects timeline for I expansion sorry expansion of the Bradley Avenue from Wellington to Highbury Avenue be included in the next improvement cycle that’s it I’ve already got response from from the City Engineer thank you and do we have a seconder we have a seconder and Councillor Cuddy and I’m sorry did you say you wanted to go to the City Engineer for no no I was just saying I’m pretty confirmed with her okay that’s been moved in seconded Councillor Palosa thank you I would like to go to the City Engineer for comment on this knowing it’s already been done and then I’ll go from there miss share Madam Chair staff have no objections to the changing and timing of this in terms of the map that would be an input into the next DC and GMIS process and that will ultimately come to council to establish rates based on what we can accommodate in terms of our rate setting and plan growth plans Councillor Palosa thank you and as we move it forward it would this area would conclude any of the active transportation things that we’ve discussed that you feel is warranted as we moving around timeline wise in the plan Mr. McCrae yes the project would be a complete streets improvement and the different components of that would be coordinated Councillor Palosa thank you and as part of that realizing we have the Wellington gateway construction as well right now underway between our wards that any of the work would potentially tie into there we can maybe look to see if anything could be tied and are wrapped in now as we’re getting close to that intersection to do anything in there I’m sure Mr. Deputy Mayor it would be difficult to do anything that’s not very basic future-proofing given there’s no design for this work at this point so I don’t think it’d be perclusive but I don’t think there’s anything we can pre-build Councillor Palosa thank you it was just helpful that this on our radar realizing once we complete an intersection we get back in and tear it up residents get really upset with us when it’s a pretty good intersection overall really supportive of this as we’re neighboring wards we share the boundary and there’s lots of intensification coming to this area at that corner white oak small has a tower they’re building on their property with their development also went across the street plus there’s the fan shop college south campus so really supportive of this network as it gets built out because it is a huge backlog and um desperately in need thank you any other speakers Councillor Hill here thank you colleagues I’d like you to pull out the project maps timeline on page 55 and I’d like you to take a look at the bottom right corner of hybrid and the 401 this is going towards St.

Thomas now if you’ve taken a drive out of St. Thomas in the last year you’ll notice huge amounts of expansion out there we have not kept up not even close now I would like you to pay close attention to the timelines we are looking at hybrid avenue of a timeline of 2035 2045 that is 20 years away and they are already building in St. Thomas we are looking at Bradley Avenue an area that is used heavily in my ward it has no neighbors on either side and it’s easy to build we have a term on this of 20 30 sorry 2045 to 2050 how do I tell my residents it’s 25 years before this road can be fixed I’ve been having this I’ve my entire term I’ve been having to apologize for Sanfield not being fixed so I’m fighting for my neighborhood if my ward I’m fighting to get London moving in the right direction because right now we are not taking advantage of our geography we are the only industrial center the only city on the 401 quarter that doesn’t take advantage of it and we should I’m hoping my colleagues will see the understand and see and understand that this is just a small link in the chain to start developing towards hybrid and St. Thomas and I beg you all please take a drive to St.

Thomas and see what they’re doing we need to wake up thank you I have any other speakers let me ask the clerk to open the vote saying the vote motion carries 14 to 1 thank you colleagues I’m aware of one other amendments I’m not sure whether Mayor Morgan was going to move that or Councillor Trussow because Councillor Trussow made the best joke about it so I think we’re going to let him have the right of first refusal on that okay so you’re going to let the mayor move it okay yeah so I think the clerks have prepared some wording I know that Councillor ramen and Councillor Layman withdrew the looking at the the piece to connect Windy Buren to Gainesboro we’re looking to just remove the bridge all together and just eliminate that piece so that’s the language that we’ve we’ve asked the clerk to prepare I’m happy to move it and Councillor Trussow you’re going to second that okay so we have moved in seconded Councillor Hopkins so please that this motion is coming forward I know it has been a conversation in the past councils that I’ve been on we did pause it when I look at the map the extent of this bridge is massive the costs massive and the community doesn’t want it and they made a few good suggestions on how we can elevate some bridges as we within this environmentally sensitive area to create more options to move around so thank you very much for bringing it forward thank you for any other speakers Councillor Trussow yes I I should say that I took a pretty hard line about removing things from streets but those were streets that were already in the ground that were already built this is very different because it would it would it would require a massive massive environmental study it would be massive costs it would be a massive environmental feat to get even even even just a bike lane even just a footbridge across across that canyon so I think it’s it’s well distinguishable from some of the other things that are there that are on streets I also think that we should not sink any more costs into something that is going to have so much massive opposition based on both the financial and environmental ground so I’m very I’m very pleased to listen to what the people in my in my area are telling me and support taking this out and I thank the mayor for moving it that’s all thank you Councillor Councillor Frank thank you I am wondering through the chair to staff if they’re able to comment given that there’s been a couple of removals of cycling infrastructure in this one would be an additional one if these removals will make it harder for us to meet our mode share target split that we are hoping to achieve Mr. Chair thank you Mr. Deputy Mayor the majority of the removals that have occurred so far are related to Sherrios on reasonably low volume neighborhood streets I do believe that we’re still in a good position to move forward with investments in major pieces of cycling infrastructure and transit infrastructure based on what remains in the plans Councillor Frank thank you I am hoping perhaps I don’t know if this would be a friendly amendment or it would have to be a separate motion but given that this is taking away an east west potential access for cycling if there could be some more engagement with western and here on to explore potential alternatives and enhance some opportunities through those campuses given that there again is not a lot of east west access but I’m happy to perhaps work on that before council because this to me is a huge gap in our cycling network and without including it without any alternatives does not seem great despite the ecological impacts that a bridge could have through this creek so anyway those are my comments and perhaps working with some folks on an amendment in the future thank you Councillor Trussell yeah I think through the chair that would be a great idea and we already had one speaker tonight tell us that really if you get creative about it there are a couple of different ways of getting down from that neighborhood to to what to western and you don’t need to do a lot of instruction you just need to know maybe through some way finding signs or very very minor work that would not have an environmental impact I think that’s something that we should we should be working on and I would I would just suggest you bring forward an amendment to council if you think you need an amendment do we need an amendment to to improve the access from Sherwood forest and point west points west down to western or is that something we wouldn’t necessarily be doing anyway through the chair so I I don’t think that you know I don’t think we need to go to staff to that one if you were talking about things like wayfinding signs that’s that’s at a much more micro level than the master mobility plan contemplates so that could be something that could just be brought forward potentially at infrastructure corporate services community protective services thank you mr. chair that could be just brought forward as a standalone motion to community protective services to increase some wayfinding signage stuff like that councilor my sense is through the chair the people that live in the neighborhood that work at western know where those are but if we want to increase the usage of those then some signs might be helpful but we don’t need to deal with that today councilor ramen thank you and through you so I’ve walked quite extensively in this area and I can tell you that it isn’t really possible to get across so council frank is right we do need some connectivity I wasn’t in favor of this active transportation bridge but had a motion just in case it went through so that we would look at other options as well as it’s also in the core of university hospital which is why we pulled our motion related to that item but i do think there is opportunity when the medway heritage forced esa conservation master plan is revisited to look at some of our connections and i know i know that mr.

yoman and i’ve had conversations about some of the connectivity the friends of medway have lots of of input into this as well as to where to connect in and where to avoid for environmentally sensitive reasons any other speakers seeing none that i’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote closing the vote motion carries 14 to 1 thank you colleagues not aware of any other amendments that colleagues wish to bring forward oh councilor mccallister yeah i had a potential amendment but i have a question okay go ahead with your question first thank you and through the chair in similar vein as a counselor hillier with his concerns i have some questions regarding some of the improvements which some of them actually don’t even impact my award but they feed in from ward 14 so i’m curious first of all about the hamilton hybrid intersection i believe originally that was supposed to be 2029 and i just want to confirm if that’s still happening for that timeline because noting that it has it from now until 2035 so i want to confirm that timeline mr mccray yes through the chair it is shown in the near term and the intent is to deliver it on the current time frame that you mentioned councilor mccallister okay thank you perfect so that avoids one of the amendments i was contemplating um second one which is actually uh for ward 14 but councilor hillier might appreciate i’m just curious in terms of the improvements for commissioners commissioners feeding into hamilton road i get a lot of inquiries about this and i know council hillier and are probably exchange a lot um and that’s also scheduled i think for more near term but that would be an expansion from two to four lanes but i am just curious in terms of a timeline on that when that would be happening mr mccray the commissioners from hybrid to hamilton is shown in the near term is not currently an active project this and so it’s probably further out in that this the zero to 10 year horizon with the exception of the roundabout at hamilton commissioner’s old vik that is a near term project and that is going oh in the next two to three years i forget the exact year twenty twenty nine it’s a two year term it’ll be a first earlier phase okay i don’t want to use him more of my time but just as a heads up for councilor hillier i think that’s one to keep in mind especially with all the growth in the summer side because hear a lot about that one i do have other comments but i’ll leave them for there and no amendments thank you councilor mccallister councilor ramen thank you i do have some general comments and then i do have a movement of some communication as well so just to my my general comments i i want to speak to the the transit map the transit priority network map particularly one of my concerns is that if you look at the map you’ll see that in that corridor we’ve identified in my ward you we’ve identified that Fanshawe park road west is part of the network but or the proposed rapid transit corridor beyond that though if you live in the sunningdale road area if you live you know in any of the parts that right now are not able to access transit easily this map does not make you feel like transit is coming soon and i know that we’re speaking of two different things we’re talking about how transit network will be built out but we’re also talking about routes and so for a lot of my residents they saw this and it was not reassuring to them that sunningdale road will be a priority and the challenges we’re investing a lot of money in that corridor and we know that transit will improve because we’ll have investments there we know that we’ll be able to do more in that corridor but again it looks like for the next 25 years they’re not part of the plan Mr. Chair thank you and I just wanted to respond to that this is the plan with respect to infrastructure that must be built to accommodate transit it does not preclude the transit service improvements where they would use the existing community roads so the LTC’s service reviews which happen every five years updates every year checking out my colleague would be the opportunity to ensure that that connectivity happens within community to tie to the corridors where we’re investing in transit-specific infrastructure. Councillor ramen. Thank you there is a communication contained within the package that we have it’s e the letter from Mr.

Schmidt and it’s around the core lawn properties specifically and I’m looking to refer that letter to PEC. So we want to move a referral of the communication to the plan a future meeting of the planning and environment. Yes thank you and you have a seconder for that Councillor Hillier sorry I don’t have my glasses on at the moment I see two dark blurs over there Councillor Hillier thank you any discussion do you want to speak to it Councillor? Thank you yes so in the discussion around what we were looking at from cycling perspective and whether or not to remove streets within the network there is a significant subdivision that’s being built in the Sunningdale road area where the golf course is closing some of their holes and so this letter addresses some of their concerns but they are in site plan approval right now on those concerns so just to be able to talk about this at a future meeting of PEC to be able to look at whether or not those issues can be addressed in in a way that’s substantive to the project or if that’s able to move forward but I don’t think that should happen within the cycling network conversation.

Any other speakers? Councillor Ferrera thank you Chair I’ll just be really quick appreciate the discussion appreciate the collaboration I have one item that did kind of raise my attention but I am consulting with residents in the area so oh never mind I’ll come back to it. Any other speakers on the referral to PEC? Seeing none then I will ask the clerk to open the referral to the planning environment committee.

Closing the vote motion carries 14 to 1. Thank you colleagues Councillor Ferrera thank you Chair for the motion as amended so we’re on yeah okay so I was just sorry just continuing on kind of where I left off I’m apologies for that there is an area that is kind of flag for me it’s to be Riverside area I’m not bringing any amendments right now because I do want to do a little bit more consultations with with the residents in the area but there’s a possibility that I may be bringing an amendment at council for that you can see it on the cycling network near-term projects and that would be Beaverbrook turning to Riverside so that’s all I’m really saying right there and that’s kind of I just wanted to let council know there’s there’s going to be a possibility for that. Okay so just before I go to council proposal just to clarify for everybody we are now on the main motion as amended when we are done speaking to the main motion as amended to date we will call the votes but staff have structured this knowing that there may be different feelings on different maps so we will call each vote separately we’ll call a vote on a the roads maps b on the transit maps c on the cycling map and d on sidewalk map individually even though it was the whole motion main motion as amended okay just so we’re clear Councillor Palosa thank you mr. chair for laying that out a question through to staff and we’ll see if I need to make a motion either now or at council or maybe hopefully not at all.

Looking at the cycling network plan we’re 12 a home view road is getting painted infrastructure this year and the next phase of the plan high view app is getting it on page 58 my question through you to staff is there’s actually a short section of ferndale app that you would need to go on between these two streets to get there so looking through you to staff that we seem to have a gap in the infrastructure in our long-term planning so just looking to see what their feedback is on that mr. McCrae journey knowledge the comment don’t have a detailed response at this point but we would hope to pick that up in the project design and you know just adjust the limits of projects accordingly so that we have a connected network at the end of the build Councillor. So my understanding is you don’t need a motion right now for it or at council okay if you change your mind let me know my other question for you is on road road things. Exeter road is getting an overhaul at some point which is great there’s cow pass more and of people walking there’s cycling infrastructure that energy connects with it and a lot of development out that way residents have raised a question on looking through you mr.

chair if there’s any insight from the city that I know that noise abatement only be usually triggered if we changed road alignment I don’t know if extra road would get a little bit wider or not but just that there is so much residential backing onto that road if the city with these projects are considering any noise abatement as normally the noise wall local improvement area program does not currently have funding on it and it’s normally 50 50 split with residents they’re just asking if part of this plan includes any noise abatement to those areas as we put in other infrastructure. Mr. McCrae thank you the the city follows a sort of a provincial approach with respect to noise walls and the general gist of that is that when we bring the noise source closer to the outdoor living area so either backyard but then the municipality is obliged to abate the increase in noise in the backyard along Exeter Road it’s currently four lanes we wouldn’t envision a whitening it will remain at four lanes with those lanes in the current configuration so there would be no perceptible noise increase in those outdoor living areas the back of the backyard with with no change in the noise origin location. Councilor thank you I appreciate that I know that was the policy just making sure we weren’t widening things I assume Sean but um staff had replied that the program doesn’t currently have funding in it if residents were interested in a noise abatement program as we do this build out is that something that staff can make them aware of or just our champion as the city council residents keep connecting them to staff I know that usually don’t want to just do portions that need to be like a stretch of residents which is part of my issue and I know that all residents would want to buy into it but just looking to see the easiest way to do that and get ahead of the issue.

Mr. McCrae I’d be pleased to work with you further on this I’d have to check our the current policies with respect to local improvements and see what options there are for the neighborhood. Councilor Palosa okay so we are on the main motion as amended any other speakers. Councilor McAllister thank you I know the hour goes late and I’ve already spoken but I’ll try to be concise with my comments I’m excited in terms of the long-term vision of what it’s just distracted me especially I know often I you know there’s a few of us here we try to champion causes the east but I think what I’m particularly pleased with this is the southeast I think there’s a lot of good projects coming you know Ward 1, 12, 14 we intersect as well we don’t hear as much in terms of this trio because we’re on this side you’re over there but I think the gaps that I saw in the infrastructure whether that’s cycling sidewalks roads the connectivity is very important to Councilor Hill here’s earlier point we’re seeing a lot of growth to the south of us St.

Thomas’s at some point I would imagine between now and 2050 pretty much going to be right on our doorstep there’s a lot of good stories and I’m sure we’ll come out of that in terms of the economic partnerships that we can champion as well so I’m happy with these I think we’re all probably hoping to see things as quick as possible but I think this is a good long-term vision I know there might be some gaps but I think it’s important for us to get this moving because in the long run our city’s growing and we really do need to fill these gaps thank you thank you and I I promise to wag my pen at mr. Wallace when he returns but I would ask members of the gallery to please make sure your electronic devices are on silent okay so main motion as amended any other speakers before we vote Mr. Tresau are we pulling out AVC and D separately yes okay yes so how we’ll handle this is we will have a vote on A a vote on B a vote on C a vote on D and then there will be a a vote on the balance of the report which includes the preamble the communications that we received from the public the delegations being all of those housekeeping measures E&F are part of the balance of the report because we’ve already dealt with those as amendments so we’re now dealing with the main motion as amended on the floor maps okay don’t see any other speakers so I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote on clause A amended one and just for colleagues recollection this is the one where Councillor Hill here made the amendment on the timing of Bradley AV yes this is Rhodes posing the vote motion carries 14 to 1 thank you colleagues I was promised now that he’s back in the gallery I’ll just remind mr. Wallace please make sure your electronic devices are silenced and now I will ask the clerk to open the vote on part B this is the transit priority network maps no changes have been made to these by committee posing the vote motion carries 14 to 1 now I will ask the clerk to open the vote on clause C this is the cycling network maps as amended closing the vote motion carries 11 to 4 and now clause D this is the sidewalk maps no changes have been made by committee closing the vote motion to 0 it being noted that that might be the easiest vote on sidewalks we’ve ever had in the six years I’m here we will now look for a motion on the balance of the report which is the being noted the communications and the preamble posing the vote motion carries 15 to 0 thank you colleagues so looking ahead we have some advisory committees to populate we have a vacancy on the coven guard market board to deal with we have two London transit commission items one that is at 4.6 and one that was deferred and then we have an added from the council resourcing review task force terms of reference that has been included on the had it as well we do have two members of the public who are here to seek delegation status that I’m aware of motion will be coming to grant delegation status on the transit issues we also may have a couple of individuals I think who are waiting to see the results of the advisory committee votes whose names I think may have been on the list for advisory committees so I’m going to suggest that we perhaps try and deal with the ranked votes on the advisory committees and then if colleagues need a brief recess to reset for transit we can come back at that point so that’s the order I’m going to proceed in um and council trust out yeah thank thank thank you um question to the chair I don’t know how long the advisory committee um thing will take at that sort of something we need to do but we do have people here who are on the other sort of live issue prepared to speak I’m wondering if we could change the order so we can we can deal with the LTC issues I don’t know does that make sense well I think that the advisory committee votes knowing that the clerks have tested e-scribe to make sure it can handle the the problem that we had last time I think those may be a little quicker okay the transit discussion may be a little longer so I’d suggest oh okay we continue with the order we have I just see people here so that brings us to considerations of appointments to advisory committees 4.2 is the consideration of appointment to the accessibility community advisory committee colleagues will recall we had e-scribe problems with our voting system when this was last before us I do think it is worth noting that we do have a youth representative name for the accessibility of two youth advisory two youth names that have come forward for this advisory committee which we did not have before but we have had discussion on this so I’m hoping that we can proceed to vote on our selections and I see nodding of heads so as is our practice we will fill the required number of spots Mayor Morgan yes yes thank you I just wanted to highlight I know that there’s a couple of new applications one of them Adam Lumley came through my office he reached out to say did I miss the deadline I was like great no no problem because the computer broke blew up and we had to delay it I had a chance to speak to him I felt like he was an excellent candidate I committed when I met with him that I would highlight his application for him so give him a look as you consider that thank you any other speakers before we open the vote seeing none I’m going to ask the clerk to open the ranked voting for the accessibility advisory committee okay I’m sure everyone was doing the same thing I was doing pulling up last committee’s report so you could see what your selections were we may have timed out the vote however the clerks do have somebody from east gripe available so they’re just asking if we can take a five-minute recess moved by Councillors Ferra and Hillier all those in favor any opposed that carries it is 627 so please be back in your seats like 632 633 please hey colleagues we are going to try again here in doing so I’m going to take a little discretion here as the chair to try and make this test work for us we do have an item consideration of appointment to the coven garden market board of directors which only requires one appointee not 11 and that may that is going to be our test vote before we move to the rest of the advisory committees to make sure that a single vote system is working so we’re going to move to 4.5 and then we will come back to 4.2 4.3 and 4.4 which have the larger number of candidates to be selected so on the appointments of the coven garden market board of directors which was actually not on our agenda at the last meeting but is on our agenda now there is an opportunity if colleagues wish to speak to any particular candidate or offer any comment on an appointment to this board being none then we will move to the appointments of a director for the coven garden market board I will ask the clerk to open the vote closing the vote and the select successful candidates is William Westgate okay so I will look for a motion now that William Westgate be appointed to the coven garden market board of directors for the term ending November 14 2026 moved by Councillor Hillier and Ferreira Ferreira and Hillier whichever way you want to visit the current members of the board and we’ll ask the clerk to open the vote closing the vote motion carries 15 to 0 thank you colleagues okay we’re going to return to 4.2 that’s the accessibility advisory committee we need 11 positions that includes one position that must be a youth I’m just going to look for some nodding of the heads that folks are ready to vote because I’m going to ask you to try and get your votes in as expeditiously as possible please let’s not let’s get them all in click submit and hopefully the system accepts everything so we can move ahead so I’m going to wait just a moment does anyone need a moment to go over their lists again I’m not seeing anyone indicating that so I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote so we can submit our votes on the accessibility advisory committee okay good news is our first round of voting worked so I’ll let the clerk give us the results there with the first round of voting we are removing the one with the least amount of votes and the one with zero votes so Sofia Roland and so vendors in the hall okay so the clerk will reorg the ballot and then we will open the second round of voting second round of voting is now open sir Pribble, Councillor Hopkins no majority winner so we’re moving the three with the lowest votes Paul Garrett, Devinder Luthra and Robert Thorne the next round is now open okay colleagues we’re going to have to redo that vote all right colleagues the clerk is going to open the vote again so please be ready to vote yeah mr chair or some counselors have a screen open others have a issue yeah we’re seeing that as well okay we’re going to need everyone to log out of e-scribe and then log back in please we’re not going to get through that before Jerry has to leave okay colleagues we’re ready to try again there’s no majority and we’re deleting the person with the lowest votes votes Catherine Bandman mr chair just a question if we’re removing one candidate a time how many more times do we need to go through this before we left with 11 there are 18 candidates left and we need 11 so I mean I would encourage colleagues to look at the results as they’re up and and consider accordingly when they cast their next round we’ll have the clerk redo the next tier Catherine Bandman had three votes the people with four votes are Lucy Lee Jamie Maderos and Emma Paul Derman answer for a question yes chair just to confirm so the last three names that was read are they still on the list are they crossed on they are still on the list but each had only four votes answer Frank can I make a motion to remove the last three from the next round of voting or is that too complicated that is quite complicated I would just suggest if that’s a candidate you voted for you might want to consider changing your vote okay we’re going to open the next round so ramen okay we have to cancel that one because we need to get our our votes in quick as possible so it’s okay as we did last time I’m going to let colleagues know when you’ve got 10 seconds left to submit your vote because we seem to be timing out when we when we have somebody who hasn’t submitted and we think it’s a one minute but that remains to be seen so I’m going to advise you at 50 seconds that we’ve got 10 seconds left okay we’re going to go okay everybody votes we’re in in 46 seconds and we actually got a result no majority and we’re removing the one with the least votes Lucy Lee okay we are ready to go with the next round 15 seconds closing the vote there’s no majority removing Jamie Madiros from the selection okay we are ready opening the vote 15 right everybody got their voting votes on time and it still failed okay we’re going to try one more time we’re getting close to the accessibility advisory committee so maybe we can at least get this one done we might have to refer the other to to counsel just conferred with the clerk we could send it to counsel and vote on the my counsel if e-scribe can get this sorted but we we’re very close to finalizing the accessibility so we’re going to try and finish this one okay we’re going to open this for voting that one worked okay we still have we have 16 candidates Emma Alderman drops off with three votes we still have two individuals with five votes and three with six votes so if we get to the point where some of these low vote candidates drop off then we will have our slate completed they are the clerk is reloading the ballot and we will be ready to vote in just a moment okay and we’re going to open the vote we’re going to open the vote now so majority we’re dropping off Yvonne Spicer chair can i just ask a question um when it reloads does it reload with the person with the lowest votes last that has how it has been showing up in e-scribe yes okay i think we’re we’ve got the ballot reloaded so we’re going to open the runoff vote we’re going to have to cancel that one we need everybody to log out and log back in answer frank are you sure i can’t make a motion to pick the top 11 i’m getting really close to deeming that in order um but we because we have started this we have to finish it okay is everyone logged in again anyone not logged in raise your hand please just want to make sure we’re all logged in answer frank you’re still logging in okay it’s okay just let me know when you’re in okay so everyone is logged in the clerk is going to open the vote 30 seconds going to remove the two lowest onnie whiznow and brice love so i’m just going to advise colleagues we need 11 the ballot is now down to 12 so this should be the final round of voting unless we end in a tie for the last spot they are in order of support that was received by the colleagues and we are ready to open and we’re going to need one more try not everyone has to log out though only the clerk is logging out this time so just stand by for a moment until the clerk’s ready to open the vote the vote’s ready and the clerk will open the vote now okay although we weren’t able to get the percentages show up we actually did get the vote count so the clerks have manually counted uh and noahadad drops off and that leaves us with a slate of 11 with one youth representative so i’m going to look for a mover and a seconder to appoint the move by counselor frank and seconded by counselor van mierbergen just because that looks fun and we will just get the clerk to uh get the vote in that the successful candidates be appointed to the accessibility advisory committee and we can open the vote on that the vote is open uh to appoint the successful candidates closing the vote motion carries 14 to 0 okay colleagues now in consultation with the clerk i’m going to look to see if there’s a motion to refer the other two advisory committees to counsel and we will hopefully be able to get those done at counsel let’s move by counselor mccallister and seconded by counselor cutty uh counselor trust out just because of the technical difficulties there’s a motion to refer the two committees that remain to be selected to counsel not not another cycle of sppc but just to counsel to give e-scribe a chance to sort that out and we will just get that uh into e-scribe and we can open the vote on that and move ahead with our agenda closing the vote motion carries 15 to 0 thank you colleagues so moving on the next item on our items for direction is 4.6 this is the communication from the london transit board chair on the assessment growth business case uh and the accompanying communications uh from uh myself counselor plowza counselor for era and budget chair plowza and counselor ramen sorry i’m repeating myself at this point as well as the resignations so uh we look to uh a member of council to get a motion on the floor and then we can proceed from there counselor ramen thank you i looked to put a motion on the floor um to um i’m happy to move uh what’s in front of you for part a and then the letters as well as the um request for delegation if those cannot be moved together and that is a notwithstanding council policies and procedures that request thank you not withstanding answer plowza thank you just two points of clarification um bless you um i’m assuming that’s a motion to receive the delegates tonight since they’ve been so patient and with us in the comfortable chairs all night and the delegates i believe to name them would be just to name them as there are still several people who are passionate ltc who might not be what we have in mind thank you um miss marrington miss man and worth the two i was looking to delegate i’ll second okay so let’s move in seconded just get uh that into finish getting that into he scribe mr chair question in the intern miss polensky of the ltc was with us at one point tonight down here i’m not sure if she’s available we’re still here just want clarification before we start the discussions for council’s aware of who’s available for questions yes so miss polensky was here for the master mobility plan uh not for this communication which came not from ltc as a report to council but from uh communication from a board member so everything is on the floor uh we are going to first just vote to hear receive the delegations and and give them their opportunity to speak to us uh and then we will move on to the rest of the uh items that the councilor roman is put on the floor so we’ll open the vote to hear the delegations now closing the vote motion carries 15 to 0 thank you colleagues so we have our two delegates in the gallery miss marantette uh your delegation request was received first so we’ll give you your opportunity to speak uh you’ve presented before so you know it’s five minutes i’ll give you the wave at about 30 seconds um if uh you run into that uh time crunch so when you’re ready go ahead thank you very much and uh thank you everyone for being here this evening through the chair some of you i know quite well some of you i know in passing and some of you this is my first opportunity to speak with you so for those of you who don’t know me my name is Stephanie marantette and i have been the chair of the london transit commission for the past year and a half and i’m here to speak against the motion as it’s been presented and to offer an alternative proposal in its place now the reason why i have chosen to come here tonight is because i have faith in ltc i have faith in our commission in its leadership in our hundreds of staff and i also have faith in city council in terms of our ability to work together hand in hand and take a meaningful step forward so the alternative proposal that i have for you this evening is not to dissolve the commission i think that we can actually strike a balance between what council is hoping to do with the concerns that have been raised and still have continuity we presently have three vacancies council has expressed a concern to have a more direct role and oversight with ltc so my proposal would be to fill those vacancies with three more counselors which will give city council a majority vote on the commission but allow the remaining commissioners to stay for example also in the the gallery with me today is commissioner Ruth who has been on this board for a decade and not only brings lived experience but she also serves impoverished communities in london and her voice is essential to the ridership experience i also have commissioner collier who couldn’t be here with us tonight and he brings an incredible breadth of expertise in the business community as well as in local and provincial politics i myself am a lawyer you can do with that what you will but what i will say is this is an enormous complex organization and having three people who have not had the experience serving on this commission wander into it at this juncture to try to make progress on the major issues facing the commission at this time without any additional support or assistance it’s setting it up for failure we also have an audit that is coming within a year rfp’s have gone out hundreds of thousands of dollars are about to be invested in this i would suggest fill those vacancies with counselors and let that audit happen then we can decide from there how you’d like to structure the ltc now there is one caveat to this that i think is really important to remember one of those seats is earmarked for a member of the disability community and i think it’s really important that that be preserved because that is a that group of individuals is a key stakeholder in all of this so i would suggest that whatever counselors are thinking about if you’re open to this uh this possibility of what i’ve suggested i would really encourage that one of those people be a voice for that community um one thing i would say i will fully acknowledge that there have been tremendous communications challenges between the ltc and city council and that that’s a historic problem that’s that’s not new but something i’d like to say um i’d like to talk about two phone calls that i’ve had actually so first phone call i had was on sunday night um with deputy mayor shawn lewis i asked him to have a call a call with me and he made time for me at like 10 p.m.

on a sunday night to help bridge this communication gap and some things that we talked about were the student bus pass and why there wasn’t alignment there i then had a follow-up call with him on monday night same time and he had already started actioning the request for information that i had made two phone calls 48 hours and we already have resolved almost 90 percent of the issues that caused me to vote no on that and i feel like if we could continue building on that my vote would become a yes and that is a perfect example of what i’m talking about when i say this relationship can be repaired and i’m here today in good faith i’m putting myself before you all i don’t know if i’m going to be allowed to accept questions but i’m certainly here to receive them if there is a mechanism um for any of you to put questions to me uh maybe don’t ask me about like budget line items because i probably can’t answer those for you but anything to do with the commission how it operates the decisions and agenda items i’m very happy to speak with you because i’m committed and the ltc is committed to repairing this and working with you and i just want to say thank you so much for allowing me to be here tonight thank you miss marantette and miss madden we will go to you next uh and again when you’re ready uh you’ve got your five minutes and i will give you the wave when you’re about 30 seconds to go thank you uh of london city councilors for allowing me to speak today i would like to have my reasons for resigning from the ltc to be clear and on the record as you may recall i’ve been an advocate for the london disabled community for many years i originally joined acac with the hopes of making improvements for this community for the community in the city of london and i did have a particular goal of improving transportation starting in the fall of 2022 when a new council was elected we began a coordinated effort to advocate for improvements to paratransit as a result of this the decision was made to appoint me to the ltc in october of 2023 to bring an accessibility lens to transit and paratransit decision making being on the commission was a learning curve for me moving from being an advocate to acting as a commissioner when i encountered frustrations early on i set out help from the clerk’s office from seasoned counselors and from the integrity commissioner’s office as a result of their feedback i put a motion on the floor on february 28th 2024 for our board to have an educational session with the integrity commissioner so that we could establish the conditions for a functional board unfortunately that motion was voted down by all except for myself david forever and david little also at the february 2024 meeting i did have success with putting a motion forward to have the ltc meetings recorded and they were finally made available to the public starting in october 2024 moving forward i did my best to bring an accessibility lens to commission business using the strategies that were suggested to me i’ve certainly never felt welcome nor have i felt i’ve been treated as a peer but as long as i felt i was advancing accessibility i forged ahead if meetings had been made available for the public to view you would have seen me asking about the installation of smart card readers the implementation of the new booking system and the undelivered paratransit hours are pretty much every meeting in 2024 the chair is correct when she said earlier today that i’ve been complimentary to the ltc in recent months as we did finally install smart card readers in november 2024 eight years after they were installed in conventional buses and we have begun to see the implementation of the new booking system although as of the agenda tomorrow evening there is still no firm date for the second phase i’ve yet to see the data to show that we are delivering the full budgeted paratransit hours with each of the above mentioned issues the response from the ltc management has always been that it is the contractor who has been unable to deliver the goods not the ltc itself as of october 2024 ltc meetings have been made available online if you want to get an idea of what a commission meeting looks like have a look at the january 29th meeting as it is a meeting where there was plenty of discussion on very real issues including the ads and the buses and the high school bus pass program i believe the recording speaks for itself with where the balance of power lies at the commission finally you may wonder why i’ve chosen this moment in time to resign over the several other times i’ve considered it in the past 16 months the reason is that with the two items on the agenda today the bus passes and the growth assessment funds it hit me like a brick that i am now part of a commission that is neither collaborative with their necessary partners nor accountable to the people of the city of london i do not wish to be associated with an organization like that and i will continue to advocate for disabled londoners from the community level thank you for listening to me today thank you miss madden colleagues we have heard from our delegates we have motions on multi-part motions on the floor so i am going to go to you now and start looking for a speaker’s list to see how you wish to proceed counselor trussa through the chair actually to the chair because it’s your your motion and your motion yes i would make like to make a um i think minor amendment to the motion if it hasn’t already been um made by other opponents of the motion and um i don’t know if this is the right time to do that well you certainly would be within your right to do that counselor um if you want to hold that to see what others want to say first um i i’m going to allow that this is the start of a discussion so um i’m going to be a little flexible in terms of i’m not going to say you have to move it right now but i don’t want to get into um amendments to motions that just give everybody a chance to speak a second time so i just want us to be cautious but i i’m allowing a little leeway because we haven’t had any discussion at all on what’s on the floor yet just so everybody knows what it is then um i would i would just suggest that instead of uh replacing the current board with three council members that that piece be removed and it be referred to the SPPC to act as a governing body in the interim uh subject to the SPPC coming up with a with a different plan and that would that would that would that would that would mean that all the counselors at least for the time being would have to take some responsibility and the we may want to appoint a smaller subcommittee um the mayor wait may what weigh in on what the committee should look like but i think three people would be too little and i’d like to take that out for something bigger and okay so i i think i what you’re saying counselor and please correct me if i’m wrong because i don’t want to misdirect your words but that you would like rather than the the piece that says the an interim uh board of three members of council that you would actually like standing committee of council just function as the interim board that’s correct and i believe that would be the SPPC okay so uh that would be you have to give me a minute here to confer with clerk because i i have to see if we’re because the committees have mandates so i need to check on procedurally if that’s allowable okay so i have an answer for you counselor just uh so in conferring with the clerk uh no it couldn’t be referred to an existing standing committee it’s actually board governed by a bylaw and there’s a direction in the emotions to amend the by bring back an amended bylaw what you would be in order doing is if you wanted to change the number of the subset like if instead of three counselors you wanted to say five and i’m just using this as a for example um that would be in order but referring it specifically to make a standing committee the board would not be in order according to the clerk so that would i’m i really would be that would not be in order but i hope that that answer at least gives you some thought for how you might want to move forward answer for rara thanks chair um i like speaking to how a governing body would work and i’ll turn it one um this is a conversation that obviously we’ve had to um i uh just like looking at the three members like i you know you’ve heard my concerns three that is a huge workload um is there any way maybe we could maybe canvas the sppc and see who might be interested or is anything like that before we would go ahead and potentially change anything on this motion hey counselor so we can’t do a straw poll uh we could you know counselors could choose to use their time to indicate whether or not they may be willing to serve as they as we debate this tonight um we could also choose not to select three people tonight or or we could refer that to counsel and give people time to think about whether they want to step forward and serve um because it’s not a decided matter until it actually goes to counsel on april first so we could do so we could do a b and c but refer d to counsel without any names in the spots um you could also do a b if there was the desire to amend c to change the number from three to something else that would change d as well but you could still refer d blank to counsel um so there are ways to do this without making a full decision on a compliment tonight um so that’s something to consider as we move forward come back to you counselor for if you want to continue or if you want to move on to other speakers and come back to you later i’ll continue just a little bit um so we’ve heard from the delegates we’ve read the resignation letters we’ve seen the motion we’ve heard uh the conversation it’s been an ongoing conversation for a while me as a counselor and commissioner i’m in a very interesting position uh watching both sides of the debate back and forth and uh in my time um it’s just i’ve noticed and we’ve been saying this this has already been said but the relationship has definitely been very unconstructive especially in recent times and the worry for me specifically and i’m speaking generally here is the wake that occurs from that contentious relationship and how that can impact other areas and other service levels or anything else with the ltc because there are those impacts that can happen from that and because we have uh a ridership that is demanding for us to increase our service levels since the day i’ve been in office um i just i can’t be having our ridership you know be the the end of of what is transpiring from that relationship so this is why you see this motion because as i see it the relationship would be taken away that layer of of contentiousness is removed uh in a motion like this and it is uh something that should be temporary because we do need a government structure to work in perpetuity in the future especially with uh the way the city is now and with what we’re expecting the city to be in the future so um i feel like you know just to make sure that we can ensure that we bring the level of service for ltc’s riders to the level that they expect as soon as we can this is why you see this motion on the floor the way it is it is a temporary thing depending on how uh the structure of the interim governance body might be is still obviously up for debate but once we get that governance review back and i would include that it went out for tender on friday so um i believe it’s going to go until uh november 2026 but once we get that back we will obviously impose that and use that moving forward but just this is a this is a measure right now so we can start uh really kind of bringing that service level back and really focusing on our ridership so this is why you see that thank you Councillor Ferrera looking for other speakers Councillor Hopkins yeah thank you and uh first of all thank you to both delegations for hanging in with us throughout the day here i really do appreciate your your comments and uh your voice as well uh looking at the motion i’m just going to share my thoughts i really do appreciate uh a comment that was made that if we are going to be appointing three members of council to the commission that it be done through sppc where names can be put forward uh i am not going to be supporting uh at all be which is to dissolve the commission and and i’m going to speak to that from my perspective i have said on the ltc it was through covid and at that time uh we had discussions on how do we find filters for these buses to keep the buses going which now we’re having different uh challenges and conversations i’m really glad that an audit is going to be done i think we have to be patient to see that audit but we have to understand this we need some continue continuation of um uh board members and i i think uh i’m not the expert i wasn’t the expert when i sat on the commission and i do rely uh it’s a big organization lots of staff people we do receive a lot of um reports at the um at at at our board meetings but continuing with people that have a bit of knowledge is something that i think is really important we only have about a year and a half to go as well uh so it’s not as if um we’ve got a large period of time i really do appreciate and i just want to speak to Jacqueline here her perspective on the disability uh i’m going to miss that voice but i think we need that voice back on this commission and and we have to make room for that voice so whatever that looks like i think we as a council have to seriously look at that and and and put that voice back on the board as well so those are just my comments and suggestions uh i um again i just want to reiterate i am not the expert when it comes to the ltc and i i agree totally and i’ve been on council ten years so always where’s the ltc and where’s the communication and where can we do a better job and and i i think we all need uh to do that as well going forward thank you counselor hopkins counselor mccallister thank you and through the chair appreciate the discussion i’m hoping more folks take this opportunity to chat because i do think this is a big decision i’d love to hear from as many of my colleagues as possible i think where i’m looking at this from is very much an accountability lens because this is something that i hear continually um and it really comes down to like you know where do we think the buck stops and we spent a lot of time through the multi-year budget talking about transit you know this was a priority a lot of us identified and really we wanted to put the money into this and and make it work and where my frustration has really come from is i felt like we got over that hurdle which i thought was a very big hurdle to begin with uh and i know change is slow to implement um but i find it particularly hard especially when we have um something in arms length um where we’re taking the direct criticism um and i feel like as council we’ve kind of done our part we’ve we’ve put some money into this and i realize there are a lot of moving parts i’m not naive to that fact um but it’s difficult when we’re the ones who are ultimately taking the blame and being told as a priority for the city you need to do something about this and so i think what i’m thinking about through this debate is who we think is ultimately responsible because what i find hard with transit is time and time again we’ve just seen um issues with the commission in terms of as the board members have indicated um that they have not been able to find a path forward uh and i mean we struggle with that too let’s not joke about that i mean this is not a you know we’re not having unanimous votes all the time but ultimately we have to find a path forward and we have to make good uh on those priorities for londoners and so i want everyone to kind of take away from this conversation who ultimately should run this and be responsible for transit thank you counselor mccallister i have counselor frank next on the list thank you yes and i agree with counselor mccallister that i think this is a very important decision to be making um especially as we see tariffs impacting things like procuring buses as well as the desire for improvements to our bus rapid transit system and the eventual rollout of that rapid transit system um in a time of what seems like poly crisis i don’t want to necessarily create more chaos in that midst that being said i am quite aware of the frustrations that members of council including myself from time to time have had um with the performance of ltc although many times i wonder if it’s due to the lack of funding we provide them i know that there has been an increase in the last couple years but i do know for example with the police when we point out that they haven’t necessarily met the targets that we have wanted it’s always been acceptable for them to say that they’ve only recently been giving an increase and i feel perhaps some of that grace could be um afforded with ltc as well that said i don’t necessarily think um doing nothing is a path forward at this point we have three resignations in front of us um however i don’t know if i feel entirely comfortable again in this moment then reconstituting the ltc with three members of council only who potentially have never had any experience on the commission my understanding is many of us have not served so i would worry greatly about the ability to bridge that institutional memory gap um so i do actually kind of like the proposal from the chair having essentially i would lean towards actually having three council members and including councilor pribble who is not resigned would actually have four council members the majority of the ltc would be then able to have more of a direct impact while still retaining the institutional memory of existing board members um and perhaps to uh getting me in trouble later when i go home but i’d be willing to serve on that um as one of those members uh but not necessarily as one of only three if we were to move forward to this motion but um to the the chair’s proposal from the gallery thank you councilor frank councilor palosa thank you mr chair um and thank you again to our presenter or delegates who are here tonight um with sharing their various viewpoints it it was definitely a long night getting here so i do apologize for that um and i do want to recognize the institutional knowledge that commissioner roth has brought to um the table for a long time standing in someone i long-term respected and thanked for the work on the ltc um with that being said realizing that any conversations we’ve had through budget annual ltc reports have all been public and chambers recorded um council members over those years even go back to 2018 when i joined council have been well noted um most recent things have been concerns over the bus ads um concerns during the budget process of uh the buses displaying paid what would be paid ad space uh encouraging people to advocate for their budget um had concerns during the multi-year budget process as much as i appreciate for finance when there was a short fall for the increased price of auxiliary supplies for the buses using operating dollars to cover off capital costs those operating dollars uh that when i voted for the ltc i really did want to see deployed onto frontline services um as that’s what people are advocating was for more service hours and concerned about capacity on the buses so that was a concern for me um the pair of transit concerns and i did watch the jr 29th meeting it is recorded on youtube and located on the ltc’s website um and i had i had concerns after watching that as well um a comment was made from the gallery earlier about council control the ltc i don’t think any of us are looking for more boards and more works to serve on it’s an arms length with some degree of financial compensation with people with a passion to serve in that capacity personally i great that scholar wants to go home and answer for it um it was not an opportunity i wasn’t looking for it was really mindful um when i gave feedback on the motion that um it’s an intern board my intention wasn’t to bring this in-house right now and council take it over um it was just to address some concerns that we had including governance and training um i’ll note a few things for consideration as we move through this should people consider amendments um the board meeting times are currently late afternoon but if council’s the intern board we can choose from amongst those people who put their name forward of what time would work best daytime or evening uh to facilitate those meetings with the board um as we consider she’s looking at serving none of us served on council before we served here and you’ll learn the ropes and you go and uh rely on staff and other expertise as you go along the way i’ll point out that not suggesting that staff take over the board or serve on the board but uh we can certainly make a motion or amend a motion that the city manager attend a few of the board meetings as an ex officio uh to help perhaps guide some conversation to bring things to light that we might consider so that’s an option as well um i’ll leave my comments there um and i noted a difficult and awkward conversation uh tonight not what any of us would want to i would say end our night but that might be ambitious too um and i just want to thank the board chair and vice chair that as we’re also on the other hand i know how those votes going to go tonight the mayor and i have already started budget discussions with them and want to highlight they did make themselves available on short notice and i do appreciate that thank you council proposal looking for other speakers sir ramen thank you and three views so um again i’ll try not to repeat what’s been said already but uh i want to highlight a few things from the motion um i won’t go into the full details of the the letter and what’s in it but um i want to speak to a few things and the the proposal that was uh on given on the floor tonight from the board chair as well or from the gallery sorry um first i want to thank all members of the commission for their service uh i’m really appreciative to all of you for the time you’ve taken uh providing service to our community um this is not a conversation or a decision that we take lightly this is something that i think um uh i know for myself uh looking at it came about from a lot of retrospect on where we’ve been and where we’ve gone and how things are moving and then how things need to move going forward and so the interim piece the appointment of three members of council um i agree that you know there is going to be a learning curve i agree that that is definitely something that the three members would have to take on um and and be ready for but i do think that we need to consider how we move forward in an interim way with the report to come back to SPPC so my thought on this is that an interim commission could help to come in and uh do what’s necessary to study um and look to really focus on moving a report forward on next steps in terms of governance and structure in the interim so that would be more of a near-term solution and then the governance review that we are underway with would be a longer-term solution so the reason for that is i agree with everyone with the comments that have been made around returning uh persons with disabilities uh advocates from the community um those have lived experience those that are uh users as well to the governance of ltc i think that needs to be something that we we move towards but i think we have to take a look at why is it that we’re here and we’re here because of the bylaw the way that the bylaw reads the way that we have our governance relationships set up right now and then i think it’s also a function of how we oversee um ltc at this point and again that comes back to the bylaw um i’m not saying that i have an idea of whether or not some some further date and in the the far term whether things need to change i’m very much waiting for the review to come back on how we move forward uh in the future from that perspective but i do think from what i’ve heard what i’ve seen uh in the recordings um and the feedback and what i’ve heard from the community that it’s imperative that we take steps to look at how we can change the structure and i personally believe that if the solution was for three members of council to join the board we may see similar concerns and issues as we’re expressed in the letters of recognition so those are my that’s my perspective at this time i’m still looking to move forward with what’s on the floor i’m open to more members of of council serving if that’s a possibility um i think it’s really important when the public tell us that they’re filling roles when members of council tell us that they’re filling roles and taking on additional responsibility that they feel respected that they feel that their time is valued and that they are able to add value and we’re placing them appointing them to these positions and so we have to take some accountability for that as well alert trussow thank you for the chair you guys know how shy i am so i’m inclined to want to support the motion i’ve expressed my um concern with the motion um i think councilor mccallister just just absolutely the most important question that we have to deal with very soft spoken let me just sort of get back into my we were ultimately responsible for what goes on okay this is not a statutory board this is the responsibility of council and if the public thinks that uh these responsibilities are not being properly fulfilled we have an obligation to step in not because we want to put not because we want the power not because we want to attend another meeting not because we want to do a lot of work not because we want to be able to um answer all of our constituent questions about roots and have to take more responsibility for them and believe me if your words anything like mine you get you get a lot of them i’m willing to uh support this motion i’m willing to step forward as one of the people however i want to acknowledge that that’s going to be a lot of extra work but i think i think collectively on this council we have to we have to either leave things alone the way they are or take some responsibility and it’s a decision point so i’m only to uh reallocate some of my time and um work work work on this i do not purport to be the expert but then again we’re not this we’re not talking about changing the staff right now we’re not talking about changing roots we’re not talking about changing drivers we’re not talking about changing the director we’re talking about changing the governing structure and i cannot unsee some of the things of seeing which is why i’m going to support this motion looking for other speakers sir stevenson thank you i um i do not feel uh able to support this right now i will watch some of these meetings between now and council um to be better informed on it but i and i’m not aware of the historical issues with ltc but i do and i and i’ve expressed this that i feel this is premature i don’t feel it’s respectful to the commission uh and as i said maybe there’s something that i’m not aware of but i feel as though what we’ve asked to be done progress has been made yes maybe it should have been done years ago but in the in the two and a bit years that we’ve been in they seem to be on track and we’ve not had ltc in to come in to report to me we haven’t set expectations that they’ve missed i’ve heard a lot of shock from them in terms of things that we’re doing here so i’m just wondering if we can pull be separately maybe do it first as we did the other one um it sounds like it’s going to pass and then i can go ahead and support the rest of it yet we can certainly look to break up the votes councilor group them accordingly just checking is that your comment for now yeah i’m good sorry i i wasn’t sure whether you’re pausing to confirm if the vote could be okay uh looking for other speakers Councillor Ferrera i’ll just let you know we’re at i’ve um tongue tied i met two minutes and 38 seconds for you so you’ve got two and a half thank you deputy mayor i just wanted to like i i i i acknowledge kind of what i hear i hear here i have heard two counselors potentially raise their hand um i i would love to get like i know we’re talking about maybe not populating the seats right now um but and we possibly will get to council but you know if we could get to the five like i would put my hand up too so that would be three right there so which means we only need two more people to get to five um so i i do see some good progress here but i’m just kind of making those comments to see if we can maybe get some others that might be willing or at least consider it uh between now and council thank you counselor sorry i was just making sure that we that recorded looking for other speakers oh sorry i did have council purple next council purple thank you so i will uh i heard few words here a few few statements i’m going to start kind of i was writing some of the notes i heard the accountability accountability financials and results uh in terms of financials this organization is putting forward budget on uh multi-air purposes and annual updates this organization is within the budget and actually last year they have saved they showed savings almost one and a half million dollars that came back accountability and results this organization each year has annual working plan for pages and i hope that all the ones that put this motion for put this motion forward they they looked at those four pages four pages of the work that and their goals and also compared to the end of the year if you look at this most of them are done and the ones that have not been are not hundred percent in the capacity of ltc it’s with the third party company uh the outstanding actions or i regularly attack attend akak and absak those are two committees for accessibility these committees members when i talk to them yes they would love to they would of course the initiatives like the smart card like the online booking system they would like to have i’m going to exaggerate tomorrow but they said one thing and they said they are very grateful because there’s the first time they see and they feel that both council and the commission are actually listening them and delivering the results uh if i if i can i want to go to the details i want to go back and if i hear something i want to save my time so i can come back to it uh when we hear certain things from our pop of from our residents i have most of the complaints have to do this budget constraints and intervals and number of buses etc uh please do remind them that you can tell them that for example city of hamilton approved in one year 49 000 hours we approved first actually which i will never understand first round of the budget we approved zero growth of hours second one we at least came back 18 000 hours year-on-year for next four years okay city of hamilton one year 49 000 hours the complaints i receive receive has has to do mainly with the intervals are waiting for the bus if you have an interval 10 to 20 minutes if one bus falls out you are okay to wait 20 to 30 minutes but because of our budget constraints we are looking at 20 30 minutes if one bus is out it’s uh it’s 30 to 50 minutes that’s a big difference i heard we’ll see how we’ll move forward okay if you own a business if you run a business you don’t make a decision to see we’ll see how we move forward if i make a decision it’s something is not working or something is not as efficient as effective and this is my game plan this how i’m going to move forward to hear now that we are making this big change and we’ll see how me forward that in my eye is not acceptable and i don’t believe that any one of you who owned the business or had put money into anything you would make a change saying oh they’ll make this big change and we’ll see how we move forward from this what i see in full p i don’t see any plan how we are going to move forward better if you make a change then put forward together so we can as a board of directors agree yes this is what’s still now and here’s the improvement and we see how the improvement is but if we make such a big change we need to see the the path forward not to make this big change and then start to figure it out that’s in my eyes it’s not the success for the future do i will leave it at this because as i said i want to save some time because if there are any other comments bottom line is i will please do or do the point b as a first uh and uh so we can vote on it separately and the only thing is i’ll say i’m i don’t think that there are no issues if you look at the government body and not everyone not everyone will always agree not everyone that’s going to be the best friends but we are there on the boards to serve half a million of lanterns and to deliver the best possible results if you compare the results so council right i’m sorry to interrupt your train of thought but you’ve said twice i’m going to leave some time in case i want to come back you have 30 seconds left so you can continue or you can save your time but you you’ve said twice you want to save time so i’m just cautioning you you have 30 seconds left you’re good for now okay looking for other speakers mare morgan yes thank you to my colleagues comments on this so far i want to say two main things one is i want to recognize that regardless of how you think people have performed you recognize that there are members of the commission who have taken their time to serve the organization over various periods of time and most people when they serve in a body are just trying to do the best they possibly can make decisions with the information they have and and do do the work they have you know it’s difficult to have a council in this order position because you’ve got to consider significant decisions but there are actual people who have invested time and dedication and hours of their life into serving in a certain way however there’s also like a very serious challenge it’s happening here like there’s not often that three members of a board decide to resign at the same time some of those with significant reasons for talking about how they think the organization could and should function better i i hear the the remaining members of the board who aren’t resigning saying they also recognize that things have not really gone the way that anybody would have liked and i’m not sure maybe you can say there’s some surprise to this being before council at this time but i don’t think anybody would be surprised that we’re having this discussion given three members of a board have resigned at the same time like this is not something that happens very often it’s something that requires some interjection of thought and structure and change potentially because without the like the challenges already happened right we’re already at a point where there there’s a significant issue here right so there’s no pulling it back and i think there’s a number of proposals on the floor i think it sounds to me like there’s a desire to move forward with be given the comments that are made already but but to council purples point you know what is done next is actually really important um there’s a governance review underway um the organization needs a level of stability through the next period of time uh and you know that requires uh that requires a decision that i don’t think we should delay for any significant point of time i heard the thought that we should maybe not fill positions right away if we should pass i actually think you should actually do something even on an interim basis with a group of individuals that may transition to something else that isn’t all the way to the end of the organization or governance review um but but you’ve got to provide stability to an organization uh immediately if you’re going to make a significant change like this so i i think that we need to take the time even though it’s late to resolve you know what that looks like now um especially be passes there’s there’s got to be a decision to say what does this look like to start to address some of the concerns a council purple has there’s got to be structure level stability and a plan to move forward with at least an interim group again you can then make those changes and i don’t know what the composition of that should be i don’t know if it should be all members of council i don’t know if should include others but in the short term you’ve got to put something in place if you’re going to dissolve or recall or whatever the term is a commission so i would encourage colleagues to you can break this down into pieces but you’ve got to deal like there there cannot be a gap on april first in the functioning of this organization like at all so there’s got to be people in place who are willing to put the time in and actually dedicate towards ensuring that there’s a level stability moving forward for the intermediary period so that would be my strong encouragement to colleagues and i think we need to get to what are we actually going to do there’s a couple of people who had different suggestions i think we need to coalesce around what is actually going to occur in the next few steps here thank you mayor morgan look for other speakers that’s for stevenson thank you just for clarification because the resignations were brought up it didn’t seem to me that the resignations happened and then there was a response to it can there be sort of clarity on the timing of that not sure well the mayor referred to the fact that we had three resignations and so there gets to be a response but i would have thought the resignations would have gone to the commission the commission would then have come to us with an issue that then we would come to ask ppc just as every board resignation just as we filled count and guard market tonight received a resignation the resignations do not go to the boards they come to sppc okay so we just had the response handy that’s okay but i’m just saying that all happened at the same time it’s not there wasn’t the resignations and then a response it’s all happening at once i’m going to ask counselor layman to take the chair okay i’ll recognize so w mayor uh thank you so uh i want to start uh by acknowledging uh both our delegates i want to thank miss madden for the real advocacy that she has done and brought to uh the paratransit service and and for the accessible uh access for people uh over the last 16 months as a member of the commission and prior to that in her other roles uh she’s actually taught me more about this service than i thought was even there to know so i appreciate that i also want to acknowledge and and absolutely say miss maryantat and i did have a conversation on sunday night it was productive you will see some of the results of that in the item that we deferred from our consent agenda around the bus pass um and so uh some of what i have put in that motion is directly reflective of that conversation and i do appreciate that and i know it was a difficult conversation for both of us but we made it happen and i do appreciate that i will also say from my perspective um in in terms of timing of things uh when i saw uh both the uh communication with respect to the assessment growth as well as the bus pass for me that was a trigger that i needed to see some change um we’ve had discussions with our own staff here about assessment growth um and the communication that we received was not consistent with that now again i’m going to acknowledge that the board chair and i’ve had a discussion about that um and i think that there is work to be done to resolve that that said i think that the work to be done to resolve that lays primarily with members of this body and with our own financial staff and with our own policies around assessment growth and how that moves forward so that it is going to transit um where it is appropriate to do so um i also want to say i agree with what the mayor said about even if we put in an interim body now that group may come back in two months and say okay we need this this and this to move forward um or we need more people or we need i don’t foresee this as a permanent temporary solution that’s necessarily going to last until the audited operational audit is complete i think that there may be more work to be done on this at future meetings so that’s um a piece for me where i don’t feel like if we make a change now although i will say i think it is okay to not if we’re going to uh move ahead with be i don’t think it’s necessary to populate it tonight i appreciate a couple of people have put their hands up and said that they’d be willing to serve but i also think that there may be members of council who want to think about it a little more um i know that the board chair asked me directly if i would consider serving um i’m going to make it really clear i i will not um my plate is quite full with lm stage stuff uh the regeneration plan that is happening there and so uh you know one of those big committees where i can’t stop what i’m doing at housing to take on uh what maybe needs to be taken on at transit um i appreciate the board chair’s suggestion of an alternate to this but i think in weighing out all of the things and i’ve been doing a lot of weighing out in the last 24-48 hours i also have to reflect on the three resignations the serious concerns that were raised in those resignations i reflect back on some of the other discussions that we’ve had in fact with ltce management here on the floor even and report cards that we received that we didn’t actually receive and we sent back um because they were rating themselves a satisfactory and we didn’t see them as satisfactory and particularly in the paratransit service and today we still don’t have an online booking system that’s available to the ridership for paratransit i’m encouraged that there’s progress being made but i don’t accept that this many months after we were promised and it’s been months and months and months and the data has changed multiple times and that’s not to say that that is the board but when that becomes a vendor issue that becomes a management issue and then that management issue becomes an accountability issue with the board and so that’s where i am right now i’m going to continue to listen to what folks have to say um whatever decision we see make tonight though i very much see as an interim step and we will have to make some further decisions along the path to getting things on track for our residents for transit and i’ll stop there good timing um thank you i’ll return to chair to deputy mayor looking for further speakers Councillor Layman thank you this is a tough one i’m very sad in the here what’s going on at the sport um you know it’s it’s kind of like a jury uh the judge sends a jury back and the jury’s deadlock the jury’s man it the judge goes a long way before they call a mistrial and um i’m sad to see that it’s come to resignations without the um board being able to uh resolve their differences uh this is a challenge that it’s coming you know um kind of 18 months left in the term before the next election um before we have a full audit which was in the works my fear is that you know when i hear you know hey maybe we asked ppc should be at the board or a huge number of Councillors at the board it becomes a political body um and you know it is a standalone commission is separate um from city hall uh that’s the way it is set up by the bylaws until we change it um which i imagine the audit might have some you know words to that effect in which we can debate at that time i understand um the mayor’s comments uh about we can’t just let it be without governance i so i just want to ask the clerk what can you tell me specifically what the bylaw says and how like there’s four members of the board can that function as a board or what is the um in terms of our bylaw our responsibility as and and can the board operate as such and um like what are options here we’ll go to the clerk on the bylaw questions thank you through uh chair the bylaw does indicate that they’re the commission shall consist of a number of members i believe it was originally five let it go got amended i think it was uh two years ago i believe i don’t have that in front of me and that can be changed um the the members uh the composition can’t be less than three that’s set out in the bylaw three members of the commission shall constitute a quorum but that is a bylaw uh that council passed and can be amended councilor okay thank you um yeah so it appears that we can um you know kind of go down the track that we’re going um in terms of i i guess i’ll support it tonight but i might change between now and council if i do support at council i’ll probably look for a specific time limit on this i don’t think we should run this board for the rest of the term here um but again i have to um i have to think more on that but just to get things going care you know i’ll support it uh tonight looking for other speakers sir mccallister uh councilor i’ll just let you know uh you were at 156 so you got about three minutes in a handful of seconds okay uh thank you and through the chair one of the things i’m hearing um there’s not there’s no luck i feel like there’s a hesitancy that i’m hearing and i have that too um and i understand in terms of the councilors who brought this board what their intention is um i i personally want a bit more time so i’m willing to move a referral uh at least to the next cycle i haven’t had a chance to speak with everyone involved to be perfectly honest i know as has been mentioned there’s some ten o’clock calls that went on but i have not had the opportunity to fully digest um so that’s where i’m at and so i’d like to move the referral for at least one cycle spp cycle give me just one moment so uh that is in order that would put it at the april tenth sppc in the april 22nd council so you look to see if there’s a seconder for that or not not seeing a seconder for the referral councilor pribble you’re willing to are you seconding it so then the referral is on the floor yeah you can speak to it dear colleagues what i heard after my comments i’ve even more saw inclined now and i hope you have the same understanding this is not a bomb and pop business this is a there’s a multi-million dollar service that we provide to londoners with hundreds of employees and we are making this decision of potentially dissolving this commission with no no clear vision to the future please don’t you think about it and please either support this for now for a month or if it doesn’t move forward please decline or vote against be because we are not ready we are not ready and this is not again we need to consider this very important and i i can stress this more in enough if you make this change you got to have a clear vision how you move forward we don’t have it answer truss out thank you very much i’m going to speak against the referral we got a deal with we have to deal with this this problem is not going to go away and i don’t i don’t think just putting this over to another meeting or two all that’s going to happen is it’s going to fester going to get a lot of media attention people want to start like trying to suppose like who’s who’s doing who’s doing what and why it’s going to get tied in with other things that are contested programs right now part of part of the reason why i’ve said that i support this motion is because i think we have a governance crisis with this board and we have we are responsible for dealing with it and so i just i just feel that like referring this sort of gets us out of here tonight but it doesn’t really deal with the with with the crisis that we have with the problem that we have and i’m sorry if i’m using crisis because i i i think the buses will keep rolling for quite a while without without us but you know there needs to be leadership and and most most significantly if we were to build ridership public has to have confidence in how this and how this agency is is being operated and i don’t i don’t think it’s there now and i just i just in all due respect i’m i’m usually the let’s refer this i’m the referral guy um but i just i just i just cannot support it right now and i’ll sit here as long as we have to to work this out thank you councilor trussle councilor mccallister on the referral thank you and through you know the reason why i put this forward uh again i i think into council purple’s point we really do need to have a clear plan uh i also want to have a good understanding of i mean who is even willing to do it i know i’ve had a few hands go up tonight but i don’t know if that was just the spur of the moment volunteer or whether they’re you know very serious about it um i also want to look at other options i want the ability to to talk to the members who have resigned um and the current members um because with any board i think one of the things i have to have a better understanding of is the actual breakdown um and and try to figure out okay well it’s if the governance is broken down fine but how would we stepping into that position take over what would our priorities be like i i would like some kind of a like a work plan in place in terms of what we are willing to do in the interim period and recognizing that again as has been said a number of times tonight this is in term um we would just be doing this until we actually get the report back to figure out what we want long term wise to do um i just think we have to fully weigh the risks at this juncture especially when we consider how much time is left in the term uh and i need to get a good understanding of people’s level of commitment are they only willing to do this for three months two months whatever it there’s a lot of unanswered questions and this is why i wanted to have this debate because i’ve listened to everyone uh and i think from what i’m hearing some people are very confident in the decision but i also think there’s some hesitancy there and i think more conversations need to be had between uh now and when we make a decision so please support the referral councilor hockens uh thank you and just to have a better understanding of the referral back usually there needs to be a reason for that and i just heard from the councilor that it’s for further conversations uh i do have a question uh if this does go back to the april 10th sppc meeting that goes to council i think uh april 22nd my question is uh is there a board meeting in between and are we um creating the commission to be vulnerable in terms of um their board meeting with not having a decision i just i want to understand how that works there is a board meeting tomorrow the count the front board would still have quorum with four members uh until such time as there’s a decided matter of council councilor plosa thank you uh going to ask that we do not support the referral recognizing there is a board meeting tomorrow night there’s also one on april 30th and may 28th realizing a four member board of the seven uh we already have three resignations and we’ve lost accessibility voice in that space as well council also is 2.2 member the council to that board which we’d also be in contravention of um and the corporations that age in the city of one end responsible for the operation repair control and management of the local transportation system the municipality on behalf of the city of one end this includes conventional transit and transportation for the physically disabled as for the website and mandate i think it’s an important thing um and not to leave that in limbo also recognizing uh we’re also getting into it’s always budget season now but those discussions at the board level there’s going to be other discussions to be made um and like to the councilor trasos point it just leaves it in limbo with a lack of uncertainty um and no clear path forward which i think we can work on um once we’ve dealt with how we would prefer to see the governance of the board moving forward thank you councilor plows other speakers on the referral answer for our thank you deputy mayor so i will be speaking against the referral and the points have been made very clearly we can’t have a gap in the governance structure in the meantime we need to show uh the writers and londoners that there should be some confidence in here and council is firmly taking a hold of of the ltc um we need to i just i don’t see a referral being a feasible option like like was said like it you know it does kind of end the debate now but it will kick the can down the road i do have a list of people that have put their hands up um but i’m not going to be saying that list but you’ve all heard that but i i would speak against the referral we do need something uh in the interim in the interim interim however it looks i don’t know i’ve i’ve heard floated around possibly like a temporary 60 day or maybe 90 day interim governance body until we can figure out how it can go with the rest of the interim until we get the governance review but i would really like to see if we can populate the governance body the interim interim today because we should thank you councilor any other speakers on the referral councilor pribble uh you only use 30 seconds so you’ve got some time on the referral though please i’m not really happy with the referral either but i second it because i’m it will i don’t have the guarantee or when in when we went there on the horseshoe that b would be actually passed and we would dissolve the commission so otherwise i don’t think that the referral is the best either but i cannot accept that board of directors like us would make such a big change with no clear vision moving forward and that’s my big issue uh i was even considering taking the uh as a seconder i was taking i was considering it but i said no i better leave it because again we gotta have a if we make such a big change we really have to have a clear vision what we are doing and if we are doing it better be better than what was before what i heard is that the people they want or residents of land and they want stability but are we going to give them the stability now with no clear vision and that’s my issue that’s my biggest biggest issue and and again the three things accountability financials and results we are not dealing with a company that misappropriated funds that is going over the budget not making the revenues and so again we are not dealing right now with organization that’s in crisis we are not yes we had three members that have resigned and yes there should be there should be talks about the things that have happened and let’s say so they don’t happen again but again based on this dissolving a commission that’s uh that’s that’s for me hard to understand because this is not an organization because three members of the commission or board of directors resign it’s not that the organization is in crisis it could be but it doesn’t have to be and there’s the case that it’s not because it’s on the path it’s the link the results is the link the results would be asked them to do in terms of the convention hours in in terms of the uh specialized hours so it is can there be improvements absolutely some of the things look at it else sir you’re you’re no longer speaking to the referral you’re making a case for maintaining the board so if you want to speak to the referral speak to the merits of the referral but we’re not we’re not here to talk about LTC as a whole this is on the referral thank you for the reminder I’m done for now others on the referral Councillor Lehman sure I have a just a procedural question here if this referral was not supported and voted down would be necessarily have to choose the temporary board tonight or could we refer filling the spots until council the referral that’s on the floor right now Councillor is the whole thing you could vote down the referral you could still refer a single clause to a council meeting that’s not referring the whole thing that is substantively different than referring the whole thing so you could still refer D to council if you want colleagues to have time to think about whether or not they’re willing to serve what the schedule looks like what you know if people want time for that that would still be in order thank you no other speakers on the referral so i’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote closing the vote motion fails 12 3 to 12 Councillor Lehman thank you so i will do just that i would like to refer the section regarding filling the replacement seats to council okay so you’re looking to refer just clause D an interim commission with the following three members be appointed to serve and leaving those three names blank until council can everybody give me one moment the clerk just has a question for me clerk has corrected me it is procedurally fine to refer that referring that presupposes an outcome on B so we have to deal with clause B first and then it would still be in order and because you’ve asked ending the outcome of clause B Councillor Lehman i will commit to come back to you first on clause D if you want to do that but we have to deal with clause B first before we can deal with clause D so my understanding is if clause D is supported at that point i can remove make a referral of populating the pre-committee to council is that correct that’s correct if and the reason being if clause B that dissolves the current commission if if that fails then clause C and D are unnecessary if clause B passes then the civic administration bring forward to municipal council the amended by-law and the appointment of the interim commissioners that could be let that can be referred to the council so we have it’s an order of operations piece B has to be dealt with first so my my understanding is we’re going to vote on A then B and then when we get to C at that time I can make a referral yes. Councillor Stevenson you have a question at the risk of putting another option on the table at this time of night is there would would it be helpful to defer the dissolution and set up the committee of councillors to do the governance review and wait until they come back with that before we dissolve the commission sort of sort of a compromise there to go go ahead with the governance review while leaving the commission so i’m going to deem that contrary because the governance review is not part of this the governance review is actually a separate direction from council with a tender that’s out and being done by a third party okay got it we’ve almost all spoken on the main motion i don’t have now we haven’t all used our time but we don’t have to all use our time either so i’m gonna so we’re on the main motion council approval you have 30 seconds left you had your hand up so i assume you want to speak 30 seconds there was a if this motion fails it’s not that there is no other option and it’s interesting enough that i thought of exactly the same as the chair of the ltc which we actually haven’t discussed what people had the same idea so there could be that we still have council standing current ltc commission and you have you could have four councillors which would be the majority yes sorry are you was that a question that if this motion or you’re just stating that main motion we would have to deal with b first b first because that informs what we can deal with a which is receiving the communication then we can deal with b ending the outcome of b then c and d become necessary or not necessary so there’s so ramen thank you and through you so while we’re still debating the motion and its entirety even though we’re looking at splitting it up for the vote i just wanted to say a few things in terms of structure so i do think that if we were to move forward with the three member council we could look at a shortened a condensed time period of that three-person structure in order to bring back a report i think he is really important because we do need some additional supports in that interim period as well i also think that we should potentially and if he was so willing i’d be looking to the mayor to see if he would serve on this interim on the interim commission and i’ll tell you why and my reason for that is the mayor has resources in his staff team and he has lots of governance experience as well see i see that enough but uh so i would be looking to um to to have him serve for that reason um i think again we’re going into uh big we’re going into a situation where we need to create opportunity for a discussion that turns around a result where we bring back uh the next steps in the structure and the governance and so this is a way to do that um so sorry i i should have advised you at the start that you had a minute left um you’ve used that but i didn’t give you any warning so if you want to ask for an short extension you’re good okay sorry yeah the counselor’s indicated she’s good so i i don’t think we want to get into counselors moving extensions for counselors who aren’t asking for it um so uh sorry counselor ramen that i didn’t give you notice that we were sitting over the five-minute threshold there um looking to see if there are other speakers on the motion counselor mccallister and you you used time on the referral not on the main motion so you did use some time on the main motion uh you used uh two minutes so you’ve got three left uh the rest of your time you had used on the referral okay i try to use my time wisely um i think at this time like i i’m still um not confident in dissolving um i would be open to trying um having the majority of votes on the commission first that doesn’t preclude us from trying other things if that also fails um i do think council needs a greater stake at the table but to me this is kind of the the last resort option uh and i don’t like jumping to that right off the bat um it sounds like some folks might want to go that route um and i’m in no way trying to diminish what’s being said in terms of the resignations like that a hundred percent is being taken on board and that’s why i think we perhaps want to try having um the counselors have a greater stake at the table i i do think we we kind of run the risk having three counselors uh come in at this juncture i just feel like they’re going to be placeholders i don’t think you’re going to see any substantial um changes especially in the time we have left uh between now and the governance review um i mean i think you’re kind of setting false expectations with the public that you’re going to flip the whole organization on its head and i think from the outset um that’s probably not true uh i think getting the government’s review and having a firm plan in place in terms of what we want the ltc to look like moving forward is a more prudent uh way to go um i mean i mean in everyone’s hands in terms of what direction they want to go but i think that uh this is maybe more extreme than i’m willing to go at this uh point in time thank you counselor with no one else on my speaker’s list i’m going to see if we’re ready to vote here counselor frank thank you just had one question so given that uh counselor calistair and i both are interested in the chair’s um uh suggestion is that we’d have to fail this and then put that on the floor or we can’t make an amendment to this because it’d be contrary to what this is okay just wanted to check let me just check with the clerk on the order we have it in e-scribe so we’re going to start with a uh receiving the communication from mismarantat board chair then we’ll move to b then we’ll move through the rest of the motion so we will ask the clerk to open the vote on a closing the vote motion carries 15 to 0 now we will open the vote on b closing the vote motion carries nine to six okay now we have c which is the direction to civic administration to bring forward an amended by-law currently says three members counselor layman wanted to move a referral on the three members counselor layman i’m going to look to see if you want to remove the referral on both of those clauses in the event that a colleague may wish to change the number or do you just want to leave it that we move ahead with c and then refer d my intention was referred d only so then we’re going to okay so now we can vote on c which is the civic administration be directed to prepare the by-law counselor fair did you have a question i do chair thank you um in the event that if we happen to have more uh members of council that are willing to serve on this board i feel like c might lock us in with the shell consists of three members of council so if we were to refer d and then we find that we might be able to populate it further i’m just worried on how how that clause will interact with the the next one okay so the clerk has advised me because so we could do this tonight the the by-law provide direction to bring forward a new by-law the clerk has advised that we could at council still amend the number because we would only be changing the number and so the change that would be required to edit the by-law during the council meeting would only be you know three to five or three to seven or whatever the number that was picked um so that would be something that they could work with if there was an amendment at council answer frank thank you and to follow up on that um will that mean that the three members who would serve as commission can never talk to each other outside of meetings because they’ll always have quorum with one other person so the clerk says uh he can discuss that review the by-law and discuss it with you but the by-law does say three is quorum so that maybe an issue that you want to consider in terms of the number that you want to put on the commission okay so we’re gonna it’s and it’s because three is the minimum is what the by-law minimally requires um councilor trusso that puts us in a terrible position if we can’t if none of us can talk to each other and i don’t think that’s the intention of the open meeting act i’m going to go back to suggest that maybe if we change the number from three to five we’d have a little bit more space for people to be able to collaborate each up with each other if this small group is going to work which i think it can’t they’ve got to be able to have communications with each other now i don’t think that we can ask for an exemption but i do think we might seek advice from the ombudsman i i don’t know but i think if we if we put the number at five instead of three we’re in a stronger position to be able to have some collaboration which we need so i would make that as a and and by the way i’m not suggesting we fill the five tonight but that would be the framework so i put that on the floor okay so you want to move an amendment to see to change the number from three to five yes is there a seconder for that seconded by counselors for we’ll go with frank this time okay so we’ve got an amendment to clause c to make it five and we’ll look for any discussion on changing the number counselor for rarer sam your mic sorry counselor trust how you like thank you deputy mayor um so i would support that just because of the workload and everything else has been discussed and the good question from counselor frank on potential quorum and that’s not being able to talk with each other ever um so i guess moving it to five would i think would be a good option i would say that i i did hear counselor ramen recommend the mayor’s name i don’t know if he agreed but if he does that’s for right there that we have people who possibly stepped up but that’s if he does well and since i’m hearing a general theme that we may not be deciding those tonight i’m not going to ask him to respond on the spot to whether he’s going to commit to that or not um so looking for other speakers on changing the number from three to five seeing none then we will ask the clerk to open the vote on that closing the vote motion carries 15 to zero now i would go to counselor ramen you wanted to move a referral to d do you have a seconder seconded by counselor van mierbergen any debate on the referral of filling the spots to counsel counselor ferreira thanks chair just a general question um and this is just uh like the obvious question what happens if we don’t get the full five members in that event before council anyways or even during the discussion of council if we don’t find ourselves in that position which i doubt that we will uh but what happens if we do find ourselves in that position then we will be sitting through another long meeting waiting for people to put their hands up fair enough thank you any other discussion on the referral of the selection of five members seeing none i will ask the clerk to open the vote on that press out this is referring the selection of the five members to serve to the council meeting closing the vote motion carries 14 to 1 now we do have a clause e and f e is the report back at the earliest opportunity with recommendations for further in-term supports while council awaits the completion of the governance review and f is the exception accepting of the resignation letters the communications and uh the notation that we heard from the delegations mare morgan yeah i didn’t say this before i’ll say it now because it’s length i think this is appropriate for there to be additional supports i want to make clear civic administration will be providing supports whoever’s picked for this like there’s a by-law they’re going to be the commission this is not council running the commission the members who are chosen at council will be the commission they’ll have a fiduciary responsibility to the commission they will act as commissioners and they and they they should be they should know that so i support civic administration giving support to that group but they will be acting as the commission and will and and should have and will have the resources of the ltc at their disposal as well but i think that this is a good piece to to link the two staffs together any further discussion council trust out i’d be remiss if i didn’t ask the city manager to just comment on this because um i i think she needs to say something about it in terms of her ability to give any support whatsoever and uh i think it’s a fair question uh i think to put her on the spot but i think she needs to address this i i uh i will point out that it doesn’t say that the city manager is necessarily going to provide supports that civic administration however as the leader of civic administration misdators beer thank you uh for this opportunity to speak with eloquence about this issue uh through you um so i i i want to be clear about what the role is um sorry we’ll take direction from council with respect to committee and council with respect to what you’re asking us to do having said that um this will require a significant amount of work including working with ltc directly um and um that will require resources uh and we will need to figure out what those resources look like but i’m not suggesting to you that we have those resources currently and we’ll need to actually either create those resources or differ other work in order to get this done straight up that’s our trust out thank thank you for that very frank honest response and i think that it was a good answer any other discussion on this clause being none unless the clerk to open the vote sir frank we’re voting i vote yes opposing the vote motion carries 15 to 0 okay that dispenses with item 4.6 we have two deferred matters items we have 2.2 from the consent and then the added on the council resourcing task force so let’s go to 2.2 the secondary school transit pass pilot program update uh you have the report from our administration um and as was circulated earlier there is an uh the staff report was to be received councilor cuddy uh has circulated um the additional direction of clause b uh with some metric pieces councilor cuddy did you want to move that at this time thank you chair through you all move that and do you have a seconder i think councilor halyer is my seconder councilor halyer thank you okay so to do i’ll just i know the hours laid i’ll look to see if you want to speak to it you know i think this speaks for itself chair um you and i first met many years ago five years ago with this discussion and um i think you brought it to me and when i was a school board trustee councilor ramen would remember this as well and um this is a this is a win-win um and i still believe five years later that it is and i’m glad we added in the um the the metrics uh because i think they they make a big difference we’ll we’ll talk about the attendance data very quickly you know in these kids a lot of these kids if they don’t have a way to school they don’t have a ride to school if they in the miss a ride to school their parents don’t have the option to give them a ride because they’re both working so a lot of these kids are required to they will miss a day of school and you know it all goes back to academic achievement and and that’s something that we learned when we were a school board trustees that that all boils down to whether or not these kids are learning and if they’re in a classroom to learn this provides them that opportunity but furthermore chair i’ll go i’ll go one step further and this provides a lifestyle change for many of these these young students who who are able to get a job after work and go to that job and then get home afterwards and so this does provide a new dimension to their life and so i’m i’m proud that we’re putting this forward and thank you very much also frank thank you i’ll be quick um i’m just i’m not going to support this at this time just given that we have no idea who’s on the commission anymore and i just don’t feel like it’s good to throw something new before they even get started so i’m going to leave this alone for now thank you and i’m going to just ask uh my vice chair to take the chair thank you have the chair go ahead thank you madam presiding officer so through you um as i said earlier i had a discussion with uh miss mary tat about this with respect to some of the uh metrics that she thought was missing uh and worked with councilor cuddy and with miss smith uh from our civic administration on uh bringing this forward i do want to take the opportunity though because uh this is a continuing the discussion this is not a final decision point for us today this is directing our civic administration to go back and continue the discussion with uh the transit commission the tems valley school board and of course we know that the tems valley district school board has some governance challenges of its own at the moment so through you i i’d like to ask miss smith um from a timeline perspective i’m guessing that you don’t see this necessarily being something that’s going to be brought back or top of the to-do list even from the tems valley school board’s perspective so we may be waiting a while thank you and through the chair because this is a high school pilot the timeline for this would be september the start of the school year and in order to do that um we would need to have everything in place well before the summer so that leaves us very little time um it we have the draft mau which was attached how you saw it so to bring these metrics back the school board and staff are going to have to work with their research department and understand the capacity and their ability to be able to report out on these metrics um we would then have to come back to council with the suggested we have a draft mau we haven’t provided that grant agreement that would flow the funds potentially if approved uh to the london transit commission so we would probably not be able to come back until at least the fall depending on the conversations we have over the coming months noting that summer it’s hard to believe is fast approaching so my estimated timeline would be september 2026 if this is approved by all three parties and by council um later this year then we would go forward for the september 2026 and 2027 school year point of personal privilege about a presenting officer um i’m just going to go virtual uh so still with you just uh a kid who needs thank you for letting me know i’ll go back to the deputy mayor go ahead um thank you uh madam vice chair so through you um you know obviously i’ve put a lot of time and energy into this i i would have loved to have seen it already up and running but i also understand it’s complicated and while 2026 feels like a long time away as smith smith just said like summer is just around the corner of summer 2025 so i understand that um it is not realistic to be asking you to bring this back for september of this year um as much as i personally would love to see it moving forward sooner i’m realistic that that’s not going to happen and so that timeline of of the fall of 2026 um i can i can be okay with that so i’m going to support this for now recognizing that this is still going to be an ongoing conversation and that i know some colleagues uh and council frank reference that little in the transit commission uh now we’ll have some changes and some work for the new uh members to take on but i think we were in that same boat with the tems valley district school board right now um i know that the administration at the school board that i started this conversation with are no longer there and so it’s a new conversation again so the timelines are what they are that’s the real world and like i said i’m not thrilled with it but i i’m okay with it because i i don’t want this to just die i want it to have a chance to come back at a future date for us to try whatever this looks like so i i can be patient thank you i’ll return the chair to you with uh councilor hopkins on the speaker side councilor hopkins yeah thank you um mr chair and thank you to uh the counselors that have been doing a lot of work on this i know how important it is to you uh but i won’t be supporting this uh we don’t even have a uh a commission at the moment and i am very cautious i know the work that the ltc commission is um i mean to probably deal with uh there’s going to be a lot of challenging times and i’m not just you know following uh the lengthy debates and where we’re going with the commission i’m just not comfortable passing anything onto them at the moment for other speakers seeing nuns or councilor preble i supported this at the beginning and uh i will still be supporting it what i wanted to know i wanted to know the matrix and the matrix are there now these are the ones we talked about already some time ago and i do think that and i do think that uh it’s benefit is beneficial for our for the students and i really want to know the results and even though the uh tvdsb when they first presented it without uh ltc being involved there was one thing is that we asked them the question if they where we see the future going and uh i personally do see the future going in terms of beyond this school throughout the city and hopefully in the future even get the provincial funding to improve our public transportation in terms of the school buses uh so i will be supporting it because it does have at the beginning i did ask for this it’s here i will be supporting it thank you thank you councilor looking for any further speakers seeing none that i’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote oh councilor plos can i ask you to just hold your vote for one moment um yes councilor trussow the vote is that the report from our staff be received and that they be directed to continue a conversation with the ltc in tems valley district with some suggested metrics okay now we’re going to open the vote it wasn’t open in e-scribe yet councilor plosas so uh now we can accept the vote so van mierbergen councilor van mierbergen please your vote please something wrong my screen on vote yes closing the vote motion carries 11 to 4 thank you colleagues that dispenses with that item moving forward uh we have one additional business matter uh that was on your added that is the council resourcing review task force terms of reference uh this was uh forwarded by our clerk uh arising from a couple of questions uh from the task force for clarification on their terms of reference um the motion is there in e-scribe uh i’ll look to see if there’s a mover and councilor ramen do we have seconder all’s councilor cuddy will second thank you councilor ramen thank you and through you and i’ll be quick um the council resourcing review task force asked you asked us to clarify the terms of reference uh to provide whether or not it was within the scope of the task force to provide um their advice on administrative staff support models within the council office and whether or not that same um information in the mayor’s office was also within scope of their their work so the motion that’s in front of you is to define that to say that the mayor’s office is outside of the scope that the council resourcing review task force be advised that a review of the counselor’s office administrative staff support model to be in scope for this review okay for any questions comments councilor stevenson i appreciate this and i’ll be supporting it thank you for any other speakers i’m seeing none so ask the clerk to open the vote castor please i vote yes voting the vote motion carries 15 to 0 thank you colleagues uh so the good news is we don’t need a motion to extend past 11 p.m i just need a motion to adjourn moved by counselors hillier and ferrera representing uh the coven guard market board counselors over there moving to adjourn by hand all those in favor motion carries thank you everyone