April 1, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:02 PM; it being noted that Councillor H. McAlister was in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Pribil

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

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

 

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.1/6/ICSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.2/6/ICSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.3/6/ICSC)

4.4    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. (6.1/4/SPPC)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

That Council convenes In Closed Session, from 1:10 PM to 1:19 PM.

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

5.1   4th and 5th Meetings held on March 4, 2025 and March 25, 2025

2025-03-04 Council Minutes - Full

2025-03-25 Special Council Minutes

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the Minutes of the 4th and 5th Meetings of the Municipal Council, held on March 4, 2025 and March 25, 2025, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

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

6.1 Mobility Master Plan Mobility Networks Maps

 1. M. Robinson 

 2. B. Morrison and M.A. Hodge, Climate Action London 

 3. J. Sunio 

 4. J. Sommerdyk 

 5. M. Jones 

 6. J. Hamel 

 7. L. Starr 

 8. J. Chappell 

 9. (ADDED) E. Blokker 

 10. (ADDED) K. Van Lierop 

 11. (ADDED) S. Murphy 

 12. (ADDED) J. Mulder 

 13. (ADDED) M. Chaney 

 14. (ADDED) C. Murphy 

 15. (ADDED) J. Fraser, Old North East Neighbourhood Association

6.2 Primary Care Recruitment and Retention Program Report

 1. S. Courtice, London InterCommunity Health Centre 

 2. (ADDED) A. Alpaugh-Bishop, Middlesex London Ontario Health Team

6.3 Additional Emergency Shelter and Day Drop-in Space Update Report 

 1. Downtown London Board of Directors 

 2. B. Wludyka, Citi Plaza London Inc. 

 3. (ADDED) K. Morrison, Old East Village BIA 

 4. (ADDED) A. Walsh

6.4 415-421 Boler Road (Z-9536)

 1. L. Damore and A. Beachey 

 2. C. Arscott and M. Leduc 

 3. C. and G. Thurston 

 1. (ADDED) C. and G. Thurston 

 4. J. Wincott 

 5. B. Botten 

 6. (ADDED) J. Holody 

 7. (ADDED) K. Brawn 

 8. (ADDED) E. Hunter 

 9. (ADDED) S. Brawn 

 10. (ADDED) P. Scala 

 11. (ADDED) K. Steels 

 12. (ADDED) S. Zimmer 

 13. (ADDED) D. Steels 

 14. (ADDED) D. Quigg 

 15. (ADDED) L. Davis 

 16. (ADDED) I. and J. Clark 

 17. (ADDED) J. Niles 

 18. (ADDED) A. Papmehl 

 19. (ADDED) C. Breen 

 20. (ADDED) C. Wilton 

 21. (ADDED) D. Loughlin 

 22. (ADDED) B. Botten 

 23. (ADDED) G. Dobler 

 24. (ADDED) N. Wren 

 25. (ADDED) K. Loughlin 

 26. (ADDED) B. Lyons 

 27. (ADDED) M. Hey 

 28. (ADDED) A. and S. Cooke 

 29. (ADDED) M. Haas 

 30. (ADDED) J. Haas 

 31. (ADDED) N. Dyjach, Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd. 

 32. (ADDED) T. and R. Wolf 

 33. (ADDED) C. Verleyen 

 34. (ADDED) B. and B. Stewart 

 35. (ADDED) C. Martin 

 36. (ADDED) J., D., M., K., and J. Poustie 

 37. (ADDED) E. Helm 

 38. (ADDED) T. and L. Magnusson 

 39. (ADDED) R. Pincombe 

 40. (ADDED) F. Webster

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   4th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2025-03-25 SPPC Report 4

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 4th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 5 (2.5), 9(4.1), 11(4.3), 12(4.4) and 14(4.6).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) 2nd Report of the Integrated Transportation Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

8.1.3   (2.3) 2023-2027 Strategic Advocacy Framework - Annual Report

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.4) Downtown Master Plan: Quick-Start Actions

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

8.1.6   (2.6) London Hydro Board of Directors Replacement

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

8.1.7   (2.2) Secondary School Transit Pass Pilot Program Update

Motion made by S. Lewis

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)         the 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 the Civic Administration has completed a significant portion of an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) framework.

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (3.1) Integrity Commissioner’s Annual Report - Resubmitted

Motion made by S. Lewis

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.

Motion Passed

8.1.10   (4.2) Consideration of Appointment to the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee (Requires up to 11 Members)

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

8.1.13   (4.5) Consideration of Appointment to the Covent Garden Market Board of Directors (Requires 1 Member)

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

Motion Passed

8.1.15   (5.1) Council Resourcing Review Task Force - Terms of Reference - City Clerk

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

8.1.5   (2.5) Downtown Master Plan: Appointment of Consultant for RFP 2025-001

Motion made by S. Lewis

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 (14 to 1)

8.1.9   (4.1) Mobility Master Plan Mobility Networks Maps

Motion made by S. Lewis

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.

Motion made by S. Lewis

Motion to approve preamble and part a):

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;

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Motion to approve part b):

b)    the Transit Priority Network maps BE APPROVED;

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Motion to approve part c):

c)    the Cycling Network maps BE APPROVED, except:

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Motion to approve part c) i) A:

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)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Motion to approve part c) i) B:

B. Sovereign Road;

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Motion to approve part c) i) C:

C. Vancouver Street from Trafalgar Street to Wavell Street;

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Motion to approve part c) ii) A.:

ii) the following Proposed Network Additions BE REMOVED from the Network Cycling Maps:

A. Huron Street;

Motion Failed (5 to 10)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Motion to approve part c) ii):

ii) Huron Street BE CHANGED to medium-term cycling project;

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Motion to approve part c) ii) B.:

B. Taylor Street, McNay Street and Gammage Street;

Motion Passed (10 to 5)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Motion to approve part c) iii):

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

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Motion to approve part d):

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

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Motion to approve part e):

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)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Motion to approve part f):

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

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Motion to approve part g) and it being noted statements:

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.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Item 9, clause 4.1, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Item 9, clause 4.1, as amended, reads as follows:

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:

A. Huron Street BE CHANGED to medium-term cycling project;

B. 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.

8.1.11   (4.3) Consideration of Appointment to the Community Advisory Committee on Planning (Requires up to 11 Members)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That notwithstanding the Selection Process Policy for Appointing Members to Committees, Civic Boards and Commissions, the alternate selection mechanism for Consideration of Appointment to the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee (11 members) BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the following individuals BE APPOINTED to the Community Advisory Committee on Planning for the term ending March 31, 2027:

Mark C. Ambrogio 

Carl L. Cadogan

Jeff Gard

Heather Garrett 

Susan Jory

Chris McKaskell

Jean-Marc Metrailler

Paige Murray (Youth)

Spencer Sandor

Mike Wallace

Alex Wilson

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Election

Consideration of Appointment to the Community Advisory Committee

Aleix Adgira (none):

Nafis Ahmed (none):

Mark C. Ambrogio (12 votes): A. Hopkins, D. Ferreira, E. Peloza, J. Pribil, P. Cuddy, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Franke, S. Hillier, S. Lehman, S. Lewis, S. Stevenson, S. Trosow

Solomon Asiedu (none):

Imran Awan (none):

F. Michael Bartlett (3 votes): A. Hopkins, C. Rahman, S. Trosow

Pratyay Bose (none):

Carl L. Cadogan (11 votes): D. Ferreira, E. Peloza, J. Pribil, J. Morgan, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Franke, S. Hillier, S. Lehman, S. Lewis, S. Stevenson, S. Trosow

Dean Lavi (none):

Sarvarinder Singh Dohil (1 vote): A. Hopkins

Steve Evans (4 votes): A. Hopkins, C. Rahman, J. Morgan, S. Franke

Jeff Gard (9 votes): E. Peloza, J. Pribil, J. Morgan, P. Cuddy, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Hillier, S. Lehman, S. Lewis, S. Stevenson

Heather Garrett (8 votes): C. Rahman, E. Peloza, J. Morgan, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Franke, S. Hillier, S. Lehman, S. Lewis

Kevin Handa (1 votes): S. Stevenson

Phil Hooper (none):

Tara Jenkins (2 votes): A. Hopkins, S. Hillier

Angus T. Johnson (7 votes): A. Hopkins, D. Ferreira, J. Pribil, P. Cuddy, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Stevenson, S. Trosow

Susan Jory (12 votes): A. Hopkins, C. Rahman, D. Ferreria, J. Pribil, J. Morgan, P. Cuddy, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Franke, S. Hillier, S. Lehman, S. Lewis, S. Trosow

Asad Kalyal (1 vote): D. Ferreria 

Paul Robert King (2 votes): J. Morgan, S. Trosow

Marsha Lemon (2 votes): C. Rahman, P. Cuddy

Chris McKaskell (9 votes): C. Rahman, D. Ferreira, E. Peloza, J. Pribil, P. Cuddy, S. Hillier, S. Lehman, S. Lewis, S. Stevenson

Ainslie McKinnon (2 votes): S. Stevenson, S. Trosow

Courtney McMurter (none):

Jean-Marc Metrailler (14 votes): A. Hopkins, C. Rahman, D. Ferreira, E. Peloza, J. Pribil, J. Morgan, P. Cuddy, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Franke, S. Hillier, S. Lehman, S. Lewis, S. Stevenson, S. Trosow

Paige Murray (10 votes): A. Hopkins, C. Rahman, D. Ferreria, E. Peloza, J. Morgan, P. Cuddy, S. Franke, S. Hillier, S. Lewis, S. Trosow

Naomi Nadea (1 vote): J. Pribil

Avdija Ramic (1 vote): S. Franke

Zainab Raza (2 votes): C. Rahman, S. Franke

Rupanjan (none):

Spencer Sandor (10 votes): C. Rahman, E. Peloza, J. Pribil, J. Morgan, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Franke, S. Lehman, S. Lewis, S. Stevenson, S. Trosow

Ola Sanni (3 votes): E. Peloza, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Lehman

Devika Santhosh (1 vote): P. Cuddy

Manaaim Somani (1 vote): D. Ferreria 

Alison Tate (none):

Jaison Vas (none):

Mike Wallace (10 votes): D. Ferreria, E. Peloza, J. Pribil, J. Morgan, P. Cuddy, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Hillier, S. Lehman, S. Lewis, S. Stevenson, 

Kerby Waud (1 vote): A. Hopkins

Margaret Whalley (4 votes): A. Hopkins, J. Morgan, S. Franke, S. Trosow

Alex Wilson (10 votes): C. Rahman, D. Ferreira, E. Peloza, J. Pribil, P. Cuddy, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Hillier, S. Lehman, S. Lewis, S. Stevenson

Majority Winner: Mark C. Ambrogio, Carl L. Cadogan, Jeff Gard, Heather Garrett, Susan Jory, Chris McKaskell, Jean-Marc Metrailler, Paige Murray (Youth), Spencer Sandor, Mike Wallace, and Alex Wilson

8.1.12   (4.4) Consideration of Appointment to the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee (Requires up to 11 Members)

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That notwithstanding the Selection Process Policy for Appointing Members to Committees, Civic Boards and Commissions, the alternate selection mechanism for Consideration of Appointment to the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee (11 members) BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the following individuals BE APPOINTED to the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee for the term ending March 31, 2027:

Andrea Butnari

Jessica Cordes

Jenelle Cornelius

Dina Layth Dwairi (Youth)

Amy Ford

Mary Ann Hodge

Nicole Karsch

Anand Menon

Brooke Northey

Brendon Samuels

Lillian Skinner (Youth)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Election

Consideration of Appointment to the Community Advisory Committee

Rey Angelini (3 votes): A. Hopkins, C. Rahman, P. Cuddy

Lauralee Bushan-Jazey (6 votes): E. Peloza, J. Pribil, P. Cuddy, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Stevenson, S. Trosow  

Andrea Butnari (9 votes): A. Hopkins, E. Peloza, J. Morgan, P. Cuddy, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Lehman, S. Lewis, S. Stevenson, S. Trosow

Jessica Cordes (11 votes): C. Rahman, D. Ferreira, J. Pribil, J. Morgan, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Franke, S. Hillier, S. Lehman, S. Lewis, S. Stevenson, S. Trosow

Jenelle Cornelius (10 votes): A. Hopkins, C. Rahman, E. Peloza, J. Pribil, J. Morgan, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Franke, S. Lehman, S. Lewis, S. Stevenson

Jonni Deetjen (3 votes): C. Rahman, P. Cuddy, S. Franke

Sarvarinder Singh Dohil (3 votes): S. Hillier, S. Stevenson, S. Trosow

Dina Layth Dwairi (9 votes): D. Ferreira, E. Peloza, J. Pribil, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Franke, S. Hillier, S. Lehman, S. Lewis, S. Stevenson

Amy Ford (13 votes): A. Hopkins, D. Ferreira, E. Peloza, J. Pribil, J. Morgan, P. Cuddy, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Franke, S. Hillier, S. Lehman, S. Lewis, S. Stevenson, S. Trosow

Alexandria Hames (5 votes): A. Hopkins, D. Ferreira, J. Pribil, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Trosow

Mary Ann Hodge (11 votes): A. Hopkins, D. Ferreira, E. Peloza, J. Pribil, J. Morgan, P. Cuddy, S. Hillier, S. Lehman, S. Lewis, S. Stevenson, S. Trosow

Athulya James (3 votes): C. Rahman, J. Morgan, S. Hillier

Nicole Karsch (6 votes): A. Hopkins, C. Rahman, D. Ferreira, J. Morgan, P. Cuddy, S. Trosow

Dilshad Masih (2 votes): C. Rahman, S. Franke

Haley McClure (6 votes): D. Ferreira, P. Cuddy, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Hillier, S. Lehman, S. Trosow

Anand Menon (9 votes): C. Rahman, E. Peloza, J. Pribil, J. Morgan, P. Cuddy, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Lehman, S. Lewis, S. Stevenson

Brooke Northey (10 votes): C. Rahman, J. Pribil, J. Morgan, P. Cuddy, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Franke, S. Hillier, S. Lehman, S. Lewis, S. Stevenson

Gustavo Obregon (2 votes): J. Morgan, S. Lehman

Hussien Ali Oumer (4 votes): A. Hopkins, D. Ferreira, S. Franke, S. Lewis

Tahsan Rahman (3 votes): C. Rahman, D. Ferreira, E. Peloza

Abhishek Raj (2 votes): C. Rahman, E. Peloza

Avdija Ramic (none):

Brendon Samuels (7 votes): A. Hopkins, D. Ferreira, E. Peloza, J. Pribil, S. Franke, S. Hillier, S. Trosow

Mohamed Ahmed Shariff (none):

Lillian Skinner (13 votes): A. Hopkins, D. Ferreira, E. Peloza, J. Pribil, J. Morgan, P. Cuddy, P. Van Meerbergen, S. Franke, S. Hillier, S. Lehman, S. Lewis, S. Stevenson, S. Trosow

Sadaf Taimur (2 votes): A. Hopkins, S. Franke

Alison Tate (2 votes): S. Hillier, S. Lewis

Candidates Lauralee Bushan-Jazey, Nicole Karsch, and Haley McClure were tied when choosing winner. Candidate Nicole Karsch was chosen by breaking the tie randomly.

Majority Winner: Andrea Butnari, Jessica Cordes, Jenelle Cornelius, Dina Layth

Dwairi (Youth), Amy Ford, Mary Ann Hodge, Nicole Karsch, Anand Menon, Brooke

Northey, Brendon Samuels, and Lillian Skinner (Youth)

8.1.14   (4.6) London Transit Commission Assessment Growth Business Case (Relates to Bill No. 108)

Motion made by S. Lewis

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 membership BE VACATED, 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.

Motion Passed (10 to 5)

At 3:22 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair.

At 3:26 PM, Deputy Mayor S. Lewis, places Councillor C. Rahman in the Chair.

At 3:29 PM, Deputy Mayor S. Lewis resumes the Chair.

At 3:37 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by Mayor J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Lewis

That pursuant to section 13.6 of the Council Procedure by-law, the Strategic Policy and Committee decision with respect to the composition of the London Transit Commission BE RECONSIDERED to provide for seven members.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by Mayor J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Trosow

Motion to amend composition from five members to seven members in 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 seven (7) members of Council, recognizing this as an interim measure pending the outcome of the ongoing governance review; it being noted that the quorum in Section 4 of the by-law will be four (4) members;

Motion Passed (8 to 7)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the following Council Members BE APPOINTED to the London Transit Commission:

Mayor J. Morgan

Councillor S. Trosow

Councillor C. Rahman

Councillor S. Lehman

Councillor A. Hopkins

Councillor S. Franke

Councillor E. Peloza

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 14, clause 4.6, as amended, reads as follows:

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 membership BE VACATED, 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 seven (7) members of Council, recognizing this as an interim measure pending the outcome of the ongoing governance review; it being noted that the quorum in Section 4 of the by-law will be four (4) members;

d)   the following Council Members BE APPOINTED to the London Transit Commission:

Mayor J. Morgan

Councillor S. Trosow

Councillor C. Rahman

Councillor S. Lehman

Councillor A. Hopkins

Councillor S. Franke

Councillor E. Peloza

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.

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, pursuant to section 6.4 of the Council Procedure By-law, a change in order of the Council Agenda BE APPROVED, to provide for Item 8.4, 5th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee, to be considered after Item 8.1, 4th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the Council recess at this time, for 10 minutes.

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 3:41 PM and reconvenes at 3:56 PM.

8.4   5th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2025-03-18 - PEC REPORT

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 5th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 3(2.2), 6(3.2) and 8(3.4).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

At 3:59 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair.

At 4:00 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) The 2nd Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the Ecological Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on February 20th, 2025:

a) the Working Group comments relating to the property located at 3680-3700 Colonel Road, as appended to the Ecological Community Advisory Committee Added Agenda, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration;

b) clauses 5.2 to 5.4, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (5.1) 4th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 4th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on March 12, 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (3.1) 50 Rollingwood Circle (Z-25006)  (Relates to Bill No. 124)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Mrs. Dorothy Pol and Mr. William Pol (c/o Carlyle Peterson Lawyers LLP), relating to the property located at 50 Rollingwood Circle:

a) is consistent with Policy 43_ of the Official Plan, for the City of London, 2016, for the subject lands representing a portion of 50 Rollingwood Circle, BE INTERPRETED to be located within the Neighbourhoods Place Type;

b) the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 18, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 1, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan,for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Open Space (OS1) Zone TO a Residential R1 (R1- 10) Zone;

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

  • W. Pol;

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

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

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

  • the recommended amendment recognizes the continuous use of the land as an access to the garage at the neighbouring property.

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (3.3) 75-91 Southdale Road (Z-25008)  (Relates to Bill No. 126)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 2271075 Ontario Ltd. relating to the property located at 75-91 Southdale Road East:

a) the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 18, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED, at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 1, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan, for the City of London, 2016), to amend the zoning of the subject property FROM a Neighbourhood Shopping Area Special Provision(NSA4(6)) Zone TO a Neighbourhood Shopping Area Special Provision(NSA4(6)) Zone and a Residential R9 Special Provision/ Neighbourhood Shopping Area Special Provision (R9-7(_)*H25/NSA4(6)) Zone, including Special Provisions for R9-7, regulation x) Balcony Projections in Front Yard (maximum) – 0 metres to the lot line;

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

i) to provide a minimum 1.5 metre setback along all interior pathways to allow for tree planting;

ii) to explore opportunities to wrap the at-grade parking fronting Petty Street in active uses with a high proportion of transparent glazing;

iii) to provide a direct walkway connection from the principal entrance to the future public sidewalk along Petty Street and avoid the wrapping of the sidewalk to allow additional landscaping in the front yard; and,

iv) to explore opportunities on-site to address cut-through traffic from White Oak and Petty Roads;

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

  • N. Dyjach, SMB; and,

  • F. Webster;

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

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

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

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

it being further noted that pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law.

Motion Passed

8.4.9   (3.5) Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Plan  (Relates to Bill No.’s 110, 111, 112 and 113)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application by The Corporation of the City of London relating to the proposed Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Plan:

a) the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 18, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 1, 2025, to designate the city-wide Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Project Area;

b) subject to the approval of the above-noted part a), the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 18, 2025, as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 1, 2025, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, to add the Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Project Area to Map 8 – Community Improvement Project Areas;

c) subject to the approval of the above-noted part a), the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 18, 2025, as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 1, 2025, to adopt the Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Plan; and,

d) subject to the approval of the above-noted part a), the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 18, 2025, as Appendix “D” to this report BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 1, 2025, to establish financial incentives for the Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Project Area;

i) subject to the approval of the above-noted part d), approve the Transit Oriented Development Per-Unit Forgivable Loan Agreement template;

ii) authorize the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate, to approve, enter into and execute the above-noted agreement substantially in the form authorized and approved under clause d) i) provided the terms of the agreement conform with the applicable Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Project Area Financial Incentive Program Guidelines; and,

iii) authorize the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate, to approve, enter into and execute amending agreements;

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

  • a presentation dated March 18, 2025, from N. Barry Lyon Consultation Ltd.; and,

  • a communication dated March 14, 2025, from C. Butler;

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

  • M. Wallace, London Development Corporation;

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

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

  • the recommend amendment conforms to the policies of The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, Urban Regeneration, and Community Improvement policies; and,

  • the recommended amendment would permit the City of London to provide a financial incentive program to help accelerate development near and within the City’s Protected Major Transit Station Areas—in alignment with the City’s Housing Accelerator Funding application;

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

Motion Passed

8.4.10   (4.1) Request from Municipality of Middlesex Centre: Arva Sanitary Servicing

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, and the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, regarding the request by the Municipality of Middlesex Centre for an amendment to the servicing agreement between the Municipality and the City of London, the following report BE RECEIVED and that the request to amend the sanitary servicing agreement BE REFUSED;

it being noted that a verbal delegation from S. Bergman, Middlesex Centre, with respect to this matter was received.

Motion Passed

8.4.11   (5.2) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the March 2025, Deferred Matters List BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.2) Heritage Alteration Permit application by Z. Xiong and Y. Meng for 124 Wilson Ave, Blackfriars-Petersville Heritage Conservation District (HAP25-004-L)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking retroactive approval for the exterior cladding and porch alterations on the heritage designated property at 124 Wilson Avenue, within the Blackfriars-Petersville Heritage Conservation District, BE APPROVED;

it being noted that the written communication from L. Davies, with this respect to this matter was received;

it being further noted that the verbal delegations from J.M. Metrailler, L. Davies and J. Gard, with respect to this matter were received.

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

8.4.6   (3.2) 2634 Barn Swallow Place (Z-25006)  (Relates to Bill No. 125)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Sifton Properties Limited relating to the property located at 2634 Barn Swallow Place:

a) the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated March 18, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 1, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan, for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a holding Residential R5 Special Provision / Residential R6 Special Provision (h-8-h-125-R5-6(8)/R6-5(31)) Zone TO a Residential R5 Special Provision / Residential R6 Special Provision / Residential R8 Special Provision (R5-6(8)/R6-5(31)/R8-4( )) Zone; and,

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

i) to provide pedestrian network connections to the future City sidewalk on Commissioners Road East and Barn Swallow Place, and incorporate pedestrian connections from individual residential units to the city sidewalk along Commissioners Road East;

ii) to provide active uses on the ground floor adjacent to public streets;

iii) to relocate the primary entrance at the S/W corner of the site, adjacent to Commissioners Road East and Barn Swallow Place, to establish an active frontage and provide convenient pedestrian access to the public realm;

iv) to screen surface parking exposed to the public streets with enhanced landscaping, including low landscape walls, shrubs, and street trees;

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

  • N. Nunes

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

  • the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 which directs municipalities to provide for a range and mix of housing options and densities, and promotes healthy, active and inclusive communities, fosters social interaction, and facilitate active transportation and community connectivity;

  • the recommended amendments conform to the policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to, the Neighbourhoods Place Type, City Building and Design, Our Tools, and all other applicable policies of The London Plan; and,

  • the recommended amendment is compatible with existing and future uses surrounding the subject site, and will facilitate an appropriate form, height, and mix of residential development in conformity with The London Plan.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

8.4.8   (3.4) 415-421 Boler Road (Z-9536) (Relates to Bill No. 127)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 822056 Ontario Limited (c/o Strik Baldinelli Moniz) relating to the property located at 415-421 Boler Road:

a) the proposed by-law attached hereto as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on April 1, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with the Official Plan, The London Plan, to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-8) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_)*H21) Zone;

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

i) to reduce the amount of paved area on site in favour of more landscaped areas;

ii) that the access to Byron Baseline Road shall be removed or restricted to right-in/right-out (RIRO);

iii) to explore opportunities to incorporate active uses at grade along the Boler Road and Byron Baseline Road frontages;

iv) to ensure the principal building entrance shall be located at the corner of Boler Road and Byron Baseline Road and/or along the Boler Road frontage;

v) that the provision of an accessible paratransit lay-by in accordance with the standards of the Site Plan Control By-law;

vi) that the photometric plan includes light cast ratings for the rooftop patio specifically; and,

vii) that the findings from the noise study be used to update the Development Agreement;

it being noted that pursuant to subsection 34(17) of the Planning Act, no further notice be given;

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

  • a communication dated March 12, 2025 from J. Whibbs;

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

  • N. Nyjach, SBM;

  • C. Wilton;

  • D. Quigg;

  • F. Webster; and,

  • D. Loughlin;

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

Motion made by S. Lehman

Motion to approve a):

a) the proposed by-law attached hereto as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on April 1, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with the Official Plan, The London Plan, to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-8) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_)*H21) Zone;

Motion Failed (6 to 9)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the motion be amended to with a new a) and b) to read as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 1822056 Ontario Limited (c/o Strik Baldinelli Moniz) relating to the properties located at 415-421 Boler Road:

a)    the proposed by-law attached hereto as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on April 1, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with the Official Plan, The London Plan, to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-8) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_)*H21) Zone;

b)    The requested Special Provisions, as part of the amendment to Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, to permit a minimum front and exterior side yard depth of 1.5 metres whereas 8.0 metres is required, to permit a balcony projection in the front and exterior side yard of 0.0 metres whereas 3.0 metres is required, to permit a minimum of 46 long-term bicycle parking spaces whereas 56 is required and to permit a parking setback of 0.5 metres whereas 3.0 metres is required, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i)    The requested Special Provisions do not conform to the policies of The London Plan, including the City Design policies, Neighbourhood Place Type policies and criteria of the Planning Impact Analysis, nor the regulations of the Zoning By-law No. Z.-1.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by E. Peloza

Item 8, clause 3.4, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Item 8, clause 3.4, as amended, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 1822056 Ontario Limited (c/o Strik Baldinelli Moniz) relating to the properties located at 415-421 Boler Road:

a)    the proposed by-law attached hereto as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on April 1, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with the Official Plan, The London Plan, to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-8) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_)*H21) Zone;

b)    The requested Special Provisions, as part of the amendment to Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, to permit a minimum front and exterior side yard depth of 1.5 metres whereas 8.0 metres is required, to permit a balcony projection in the front and exterior side yard of 0.0 metres whereas 3.0 metres is required, to permit a minimum of 46 long-term bicycle parking spaces whereas 56 is required and to permit a parking setback of 0.5 metres whereas 3.0 metres is required, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i)    The requested Special Provisions do not conform to the policies of The London Plan, including the City Design policies, Neighbourhood Place Type policies and criteria of the Planning Impact Analysis, nor the regulations of the Zoning By-law No. Z.-1.

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

i) to reduce the amount of paved area on site in favour of more landscaped areas;

ii) that the access to Byron Baseline Road shall be removed or restricted to right-in/right-out (RIRO);

iii) to explore opportunities to incorporate active uses at grade along the Boler Road and Byron Baseline Road frontages;

iv) to ensure the principal building entrance shall be located at the corner of Boler Road and Byron Baseline Road and/or along the Boler Road frontage;

v) that the provision of an accessible paratransit lay-by in accordance with the standards of the Site Plan Control By-law;

vi) that the photometric plan includes light cast ratings for the rooftop patio specifically; and,

vii) that the findings from the noise study be used to update the Development Agreement;

it being noted that pursuant to subsection 34(17) of the Planning Act, no further notice be given;

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

  • a communication dated March 12, 2025 from J. Whibbs;

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

  • N. Nyjach, SBM;

  • C. Wilton;

  • D. Quigg;

  • F. Webster; and,

  • D. Loughlin;

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

8.2   6th Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee

2025-03-24 ICSC Report 6

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 6th Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 13(2.10), 14(2.12) and 15(4.1).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by C. Rahman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) 2025 Debenture Issuance

Motion made by C. Rahman

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

a)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to proceed with the issuance of debentures in the capital markets upon suitable market conditions to provide permanent financing for capital works in an amount not to exceed $47,871,000; it being noted that two separate issuances are planned for 2025’s debenture issuance program; and

b)    the Civic Administration BE INSTRUCTED to schedule and convene appropriately timed special Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee meetings, if needed, upon successful placement of the City’s debt in the capital markets to ensure adequate time for Council approval while adhering to the necessary financial settlement requirements.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) Appointment of Consulting Engineers for the Trunk Watermain Installation Program

Motion made by C. Rahman

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the appointment of consulting engineers for the Trunk Watermain Installation Program:

a)     the following consulting engineers BE APPOINTED to carry out consulting services for the identified Trunk Watermain Installation Program funded projects, at the upset amounts identified below, in accordance with the estimate on file, and in accordance with Section 15.2(e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy:

i)    Dillon Consulting Limited BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the detailed design of Contract 2 – Wonderland Road North from Gainsborough Road to Oxford Street West, in the total amount of $718,063.00 (including contingency), excluding HST;

ii)    AECOM Canada ULC BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the detailed design of Contract 4 – Commissioners Road from Pond Mills Road to Deveron Crescent, Pond Mills Road from Burlington Crescent to Deveron Cresent, and Deveron Crescent from Pond Mills Road to Glenroy Road in the total amount of $711,020.00 (including contingency), excluding HST; and

iii)    AECOM Canada ULC. BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the detailed design of Contract 6 – Wonderland Road South, from Hamlyn Road to Dingman Drive, and Dingman Drive from Wonderland Road South to White Oak Road, in the total amount of $302,122.00 (including contingency), excluding HST;

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.3) Supply of Membrane Bioreactor Equipment for the Oxford Wastewater Treatment Plant - Irregular Results (Relates to Bill No.’s 120, 121 & 122)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the Supply of Membrane Bioreactor Equipment for the Oxford Wastewater Treatment Plant:

a)    the supply of Membrane Bioreactor Equipment BE AWARDED to Veolia Water Technologies & Solutions Canada GP for the total price of $5,484,080.00 excluding HST, in accordance with Section 19.4 of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the revised Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the added agenda as Appendix ‘A’;

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

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

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (2.4) 2025 Watermain Cleaning and Lining Contract Award

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the award of contract for Watermain Cleaning and Lining Services:

a)    the bid submitted by Fer-Pal Construction Ltd at its tendered price of $6,328,764.99, excluding HST, for Watermain Cleaning and Lining Services be accepted; it being noted that this is the third year of a five-year contract submitted by Fer Pal Construction Ltd. and where unit prices were carried over from the original tendered contract plus an increase in line with the Consumer Price Index;

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (2.5) Appointment of Consulting Engineer: Bostwick Road Improvements RFP-2024-334

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment &  Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the appointment of a consulting engineer for the detailed design and tendering of Bostwick Road Improvements from Southdale Road West to Wharncliffe Road South:

a)    the proposal submitted by Stantec Consulting Ltd. BE ACCEPTED to provide consulting engineering services to complete the detailed design and tendering for the Bostwick Road Improvements at an upset amount of $910,374.30 excluding HST, as per Section 15.2 (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for this assignment BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated March 24, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’;

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (2.6) Contract Award: Tender No. RFT-2024-345 Sunningdale Road and Richmond Street Intersection Improvements

Motion made by C. Rahman

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the award of contracts for the Sunningdale Road and Richmond Street Intersection Improvements (Tender No. RFT-2024-345):

a)    the bid for project construction submitted by L82 Construction Ltd at its tendered price of $7,552,917.50, excluding HST, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by L82 Construction Ltd was the lowest of eight bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)     AECOM Canada Ltd. BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the contract administration and construction supervision for this project at an upset amount of $628,784.00 excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the Corporation of the City of London and a private property owner in relation to the cost-sharing of servicing works contained within the Sunningdale Road and Richmond Street Intersection project;

d)    the installation of a new pedestrian signal BE APPROVED at the intersection of Sunningdale Road West and Meadowlands Way;

e)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated March 24, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’;

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

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

h)     the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract for the material to be supplied and the work to be done relating to this project (RFT-2024-345); and

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

Motion Passed

8.2.8   (2.7) Appointment of Consulting Engineer for Contract Administration Services: Hyde Park Stormwater Assignment ‘B’- Phase 2 Construction

Motion made by C. Rahman

That on the recommendation of Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the appointment of a consulting engineer for contract administration services for the Hyde Park Stormwater Assignment ‘B’ Phase 2 Construction project:

a)    Montrose Environmental Solutions Canada Inc. BE APPOINTED to complete resident inspection and contract administration in accordance with the estimate on file, at an upset limit of $202,800, including 10% contingency, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.2.9   (2.8) Appointment of Consulting Engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program

Motion made by C. Rahman

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the appointment of consulting engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program:

a)     the following consulting engineers BE APPOINTED to carry out consulting services for the identified Infrastructure Renewal Program funded projects, at the upset amounts identified below, in accordance with the estimate on file, and in accordance with Section 15.2(g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy:

i)    Dillon Consulting Limited, BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the resident inspection and contract administration for the 2025 Infrastructure Renewal Program William Street project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $467,942.75 including 10% contingency, excluding HST;

ii)    Dillon Consulting Limited BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the resident inspection and contract administration for the 2025 Infrastructure Renewal Program Rectory Street project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $427,552.13, including 10% contingency, excluding HST;

iii)    Archibald, Gray & McKay Engineering Ltd., BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the resident inspection and contract administration for the 2025 Infrastructure Renewal Program Sterling Street, Salisbury Street and Mornington Avenue project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $448,800.00, including 10% contingency, excluding HST;

iv)    Archibald, Gray & McKay Engineering Ltd., BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the resident inspection and contract administration for the 2025 Infrastructure Renewal Program Central Avenue project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $387,200.00, including 10% contingency, excluding HST;

v)    Spriet Associates London Limited, BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the resident inspection and contract administration for the 2025 Infrastructure Renewal Program Craig Street project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $252,395.00, including 10% contingency, excluding HST:

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.2.10   (2.9) Supply of Inlet Screen and Repair Parts for the Vauxhall Wastewater Treatment Plant - Single Source

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the supply of an inlet screen for the Vauxhall Wastewater Treatment Plant:

a)    the supply of an inlet step screen and repair parts for second inlet step screen BE AWARDED to Claro for the total price of $167,712 excluding HST, as a single source in accordance with Article 14.4.d of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.2.11   (2.11) Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members 2025 Remuneration

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the report dated March 24, 2025 entitled “Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members 2025 Remuneration” BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.2.12   (2.13) Fees and Charges By-law Update - Fee Exemption for Affordable and Social Housing (Relates to Bill No. 109)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated March 24, 2025 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 1, 2025 to amend By-law A-60 Fees and Charges By-law with respect to affordable and social housing development.

Motion Passed

8.2.13   (2.10) Declare Surplus - City-Owned Property - Part of Belvedere Park

Motion made by C. Rahman

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

a)    the subject property outlined on Location Map as appended to the staff report dated March 24, 2025 as Appendix “A” BE DECLARED SURPLUS; and

b)    the subject property (“Surplus Lands”) BE SOLD to one of the abutting property owners via invitation tender as allowed for under the Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy;

it being noted that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee heard delegations from L. Patterson, T. Young, B. Deleeuw, A. Deleeuw, and J. Matsui, with respect to this matter;

it being further noted that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee received communications from L. Patterson, B. Garrity, and T. Young with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

8.2.14   (2.12) Consideration for an Updated Low-Income Seniors and Low-Income Persons with Disabilities Tax Deferral Program

Motion made by S. Franke

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 24, 2025, “Consideration for an updated low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities Tax Deferral Program”:

a)    the staff report dated March 24, 2025, “Consideration for an updated low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities Tax Deferral Program” BE RECEIVED for information; and

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a Business Case for the implementation of an expanded Low-income Seniors and Low-income Persons with disabilities Tax Deferral program modeled on the program in effect in Ottawa for submission to the Budget Committee for the 2026 tax year;

it being noted that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee heard a delegation and received a communication from D. Pollock, President, Navigating Retirement with respect to this matter.

At 4:50 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair.

At 4:54 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Franke

Motion to approve part a):

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 24, 2025, “Consideration for an updated low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities Tax Deferral Program”:

a)    the staff report dated March 24, 2025, “Consideration for an updated low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities Tax Deferral Program” BE RECEIVED for information;

it being noted that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee heard a delegation and received a communication from D. Pollock, President, Navigating Retirement with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Franke

Motion to approve part b):

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a Business Case for the implementation of an expanded Low-income Seniors and Low-income Persons with disabilities Tax Deferral program modeled on the program in effect in Ottawa for submission to the Budget Committee for the 2026 tax year;

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

Item 14, clause 2.12, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 24, 2025, “Consideration for an updated low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities Tax Deferral Program”:

a)    the staff report dated March 24, 2025, “Consideration for an updated low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities Tax Deferral Program” BE RECEIVED for information;

it being noted that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee heard a delegation and received a communication from D. Pollock, President, Navigating Retirement with respect to this matter.

8.2.15   (4.1) Municipal Autonomy and Revenue Generation - Councillor S. Franke, Councillor A. Hopkins and Mayor J. Morgan

At 4:57 PM, Councillor D. Ferreira leaves the meeting.

At 5:00 PM, Councillor D. Ferreira enters the meeting.

At 4:59 PM, Councillor S. Hillier leaves the meeting.

At 5:02 PM, Councillor S. Hillier enters the meeting.

Motion made by C. Rahman

That Councillor Anna Hopkins BE REQUESTED to bring forward the issue of municipal right-of-way fees for natural gas utilities to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), requesting that AMO:

a)    advocate for provincial regulatory changes to allow municipalities to charge utilities for right-of-way use;

b)    engage Ontario municipalities to develop a unified advocacy position on this issue; and

c)    explore policy solutions aligned with other provinces to ensure fair municipal compensation.

Motion Passed (10 to 5)

8.3   5th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2025-03-17 CPSC Report

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 5th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 8(2.2), 10(2.9), 11(2.10), 12(2.11).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) 3rd Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on March 6, 2025:

a)    the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee list of accomplishments, as appended to the Agenda, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for review and consideration, as per Council direction, in relation to the Terms of Reference for the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee with respect to responsibilities related to the welfare of animals in the community; and,

b)    clauses 1.1, 3.1 and 5.1 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.3) London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership Update  (Relates to Bill No. 104)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated March 17, 2025, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 1, 2025, to:

a)    ratify Contribution Agreement Number S263926014, as appended to the above-noted by-law, between the City and Canada (as represented by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), effective as of April 1, 2025, executed by the City Manager and the Director, Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression;

b)    severally delegate the authority to the City Manager and the Director, Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression to approve and execute:

i)     amending agreements with Canada (as represented by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) for the London & Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership (“LMLIP”) as of April 1, 2025 (“Contribution Agreement”);

ii)    further agreements with Canada that relate to the Agreement and to the LMLIP; and,

iii)  agreements (including amending agreements) with third party service providers that relate to the Agreement and to the LMLIP (“Service Provider Agreement”);

on the condition that they are consistent with the requirements contained in the Contribution Agreement or Service Provider Agreement, as the case may be, and that do not require additional funding or are provided for in the City’s current budget, and that do not increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London, subject to prior review and approval by the City Treasurer or a written designate of the City Treasurer;

c)    direct the City Manager and the Director, Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression to forward a copy of the above-noted fully executed agreements to the City Clerk’s office for record-keeping purposes;

d)    severally delegate the authority to the City Manager, the Director of Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression, or their written designates to approve and execute such further and other documents (not Agreements) that do not fall under section a) above, that may be required in furtherance of The Corporation of the City of London’s obligations under its Contribution Agreement with Canada, and Service Provider Agreements, regarding the LMLIP, on the condition that they are consistent with the requirements contained in the Contribution Agreement or Service Provider Agreement, as the case may be, and that do not require additional funding or are provided for in the City’s current budget, and that do not increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London, subject to prior review and approval by the City Treasurer; and,

e)    delegate authority to the Manager, Strategic Programs and Partnerships, Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression, or their written designates, to undertake all the administrative, financial and reporting acts, including signing authority regarding application forms for funding, budgets, cash flows, other financial reporting including financial claims, and directions, consents and other authorizations as may be required, provided that the monetary amounts do not exceed the maximum amount of IRCC’s contribution specified in the Contribution Agreement (and any amendments) that are necessary in connection with the above-noted Contribution Agreement or Purchase of Service Agreement. (2025-C01A/S15)

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.4) London Fire Department Single Source Procurement of Hazardous Materials Handheld Spectrometer (SS-2025-037)  (Relates to Bill No. 123)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 17, 2025, related to the London Fire Department Single Source Procurement of Hazardous Materials Handheld Spectrometer (SS-2025-037):

a)    in accordance with Section 14.4(e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Fire Administration BE AUTHORIZED to enter into negotiations with Visiontec Systems, 1-247 Armstrong Ave, Georgetown, ON, L7G 4X6, for the price of $83,880 (excluding HST) for a single source, one-time purchase of one (1) XplorIR handheld spectrometer for the London Fire Department;

b)    the approval above BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London negotiating satisfactory prices, terms, conditions, and entering into a contract with Visiontec Systems to provide one (1) XplorIR handheld spectrometer to the London Fire Department;

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

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

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, as required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2025-V08)

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.5) Food and Beverage Concessions in Arenas

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the staff report dated March 17, 2025, with respect to Food and Beverage Concessions in Arenas, BE RECEIVED. (2025-R05A)

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (2.7) Update on Provincial Electric Kick-Scooter and Cargo Power-Assisted Bicycle Pilots

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 17, 2025, related to an Update on Provincial Electric Kick-Scooter and Cargo Power-Assisted Bicycle Pilots:

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to share these findings with the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) as part of their annual reporting requirements for participating in these two pilots, London Police Service and the Middlesex-London Health Unit. (2025-T10)

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (2.8) Multi-Space Parking Meter Replacement - Single Source Procurement

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 17, 2025 related to Multi-Space Parking Meter Replacement Single Source Procurement:

a)    a Single Source procurement process BE AUTHORIZED to be undertaken, necessary in connection with the replacement of this infrastructure;

b)    the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract for this purchase; and,

c)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute a contract, statement of work or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2025-F17)

Motion Passed

8.3.9   (2.6) One Year Update: Green Bin and Biweekly Collection Program - Part One: Program Monitoring and Community Feedback

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 17, 2025, related to the One Year Update on the Greem Bin and Biweekly Collection Program Part One Program Monitoring and Community Feedback:

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to add the following details to the Part Two report, in addition to details on pet waste, garbage container limits and additional collection services and related matters, by including:

i)        a final update on Blue Box transition and what Londoners can expect starting January 1, 2026 when the program fully transitions to the producers of packaging, paper products and packaging-like products;

ii)    options on how recyclable materials that have been deemed as non-eligible sources for collection by industry can be handled;

iii)    an update on other extended producer responsibility programs and the impact on waste diversion in London and program cost; and,

iv)    options and cost estimates on how the green bin program can be extended to churches and non-profits offering food services for hospitality meals. (2025-E07)

Motion Passed

8.3.13   (3.1) 4th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on March 5, 2025:

a)    the Mayor’s New Years Honour List Working Group recommendations, as appended to the Agenda, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration;

b)    the Working Group comments related to the City of London Plant Lists, as appended to the Agenda, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration;

c)    the Draft Invasive Plants brochures, as appended to the Agenda, BE FORWARDED to the Manager, Community Planning and Corporate Communications for consideration; and,

d)    clauses 1.1, 2.1, 3.1 to 3.3 and 5.2 BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that a verbal delegation from B. Samuels, Chair, Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed

8.3.14   (5.1) Short-Term Rental Enforcement Fund  (Relates to Bill No. 106)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated March 17, 2025, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 1, 2025, to:

a)         ratify the Short-Term Rental Enforcement Fund Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law between the City and Canada (as represented by the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities) (“Agreement”), effective as of April 1, 2025, executed by the City Manager;

b)         severally delegate the authority the City Manager and the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth to approve and execute:

i)          amending agreements with Canada for the Short-Term Rental Enforcement Fund (“STREF”) as of April 1, 2025 (“Agreement”); and,

ii)         further agreements with Canada that relate to the Agreement and to STREF;

on the condition that they are consistent with the requirements contained in the Contribution Agreement or Service Provider Agreement, as the case may be, and that do not require additional funding or are provided for in the City’s current budget, and that do not increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London, subject to prior review and approval by the City Treasurer or a written designate of the City Treasurer;

c)    severally delegate the authority to the City Manager, the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designates, to approve and execute such further and other documents (not Agreements) that do not fall under sections above, that may be required in furtherance of The Corporation of the City of London’s obligations under its Agreement with Canada, regarding the STREF, on the condition that they are consistent with the requirements contained in the Agreement, and that do not require additional funding or are provided for in the City’s current budget, and that do not increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London, subject to prior review and approval by the City Treasurer. (2025-S11/S14)

Motion Passed

8.3.15   (5.2) Interim Housing Assistance Program (IHAP) for Costs Incurred Between April 1 and December 31, 2024  (Relates to Bill No. 107)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated March 17, 2025, BE INTRODUCED at the Council meeting to be held on April 1, 2025, to:

a)         severally delegate the authority to the City Manager and the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development to approve:

i)           amending agreements with The Government of Canada (Interim Housing Assistance Program (IHAP) for costs incurred between April 1 and December 31, 2024 and to ratify the Agreement; 

ii)         further agreements with The Government of Canada (Interim Housing Assistance Program (IHAP) for costs incurred between April 1 and December 31, 2024 and to ratify the Agreement.; and,

iii)        agreements (including amending agreements) with third party services providers  that relate to the Contribution Agreement (“Service Provider Agreement”);

on the condition that they are consistent with the requirements contained in the Government of Canada (Interim Housing Assistance Program (IHAP) for costs incurred between April 1 and December 31, 2024 and to ratify the Agreement. Or Service Provider Agreement, as the case may be, and that do not require additional funding or are provided for in the City’s current budget, and that do not increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London, subject to prior review and approval by the City Treasurer or a written designate of the City Treasurer;

b)        authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute agreements (including amending agreements) approved above;

c)        severally delegate the authority to the City Manager, the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or their written designates, to approve such further and other documents (not Agreements) that do not fall under section a) above, that may be required in furtherance of The Corporation of the City of London’s obligations under its Contribution Agreement with Canada, and Service Provider Agreements, on the condition that they are consistent with the requirements contained in the Contribution Agreement or Service Provider Agreement, as the case may be, and that do not require additional funding or are provided for in the City’s current budget, and that do not increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London, subject to prior review and approval by the City Treasurer;

d)        severally authorize the City Manager and Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or their written designates, to execute the documents approved above;

e)        severally delegate the authority to the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or their written designates, to undertake all the administrative, financial and reporting acts, including signing authority regarding application forms for funding, budgets, cash flows, other financial reporting including financial claims, and directions, consents and other authorizations as may be required, provided that the monetary amounts do not exceed the maximum amount of Canada’s contribution specified in the Contribution Agreement (and any amendments) that are necessary in connection with the Contribution Agreement or Purchase of Service Agreement, as approved above; and,

f)        ratify the Agreement with the Government of Canada (Interim Housing Assistance Program (IHAP)) for costs incurred between April 1 and December 31, 2024. (2025-S11/S14)

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (2.2) Primary Care Recruitment and Retention Program Report

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 17, 2025 related to Primary Care Recruitment and Retention Program:

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b)    the City’s financial contribution BE APPROVED from the Economic Development Reserve Fund in the amount of $80,000 for one year; it being noted that the uncommitted balance of the Economic Development Fund is approximately $4.8 million; and,

c)    the Mayor BE REQUESTED to write a letter to Middlesex County Mayors requesting that the county contribute a percentage of the $80,000 London is contributing for the recruitment of doctors to London Middlesex and surrounding area;

it being noted that a delegation and presentation from A. Loewen, Middlesex London Ontario Health Team, with respect to this matter, were received. (2025-S08)

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Pribil

Motion to amend from $80,000 to $50,000 in parts b) and c):

b)    the City’s financial contribution BE APPROVED from the Economic Development Reserve Fund in the amount of $50,000 for one year; it being noted that the uncommitted balance of the Economic Development Fund is approximately $4.8 million; and,

c)    the Mayor BE REQUESTED to write a letter to Middlesex County Mayors requesting that the county contribute a percentage of the $50,000 London is contributing for the recruitment of doctors to London Middlesex and surrounding area;

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That pursuant to section 11.11 of the Council Procedure by-law, the Council BE PERMITTED to proceed beyond 6:00 PM.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to approve part a) and it being noted:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 17, 2025 related to Primary Care Recruitment and Retention Program:

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that a delegation and presentation from A. Loewen, Middlesex London Ontario Health Team, with respect to this matter, were received. (2025-S08)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Franke

Motion to approve part b) and c), as amended:

b)    the City’s financial contribution BE APPROVED from the Economic Development Reserve Fund in the amount of $50,000 for one year; it being noted that the uncommitted balance of the Economic Development Fund is approximately $4.8 million; and,

c)    the Mayor BE REQUESTED to write a letter to Middlesex County Mayors requesting that the county contribute a percentage of the $50,000 London is contributing for the recruitment of doctors to London Middlesex and surrounding area;

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

Item 8, clause 2.2, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 17, 2025 related to Primary Care Recruitment and Retention Program:

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that a delegation and presentation from A. Loewen, Middlesex London Ontario Health Team, with respect to this matter, were received. (2025-S08)

8.3.10   (2.9) Provision of Outdoor Basic Needs

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 17, 2025, related to the Provision of Outdoor Basic Needs:

a)        the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to operationalize the components of the above-noted Provision of Outdoor Basic Needs Report dated March 17, 2025;

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

b)        the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to allocate up to $37,033 (excluding HST) for the provision of Portable Washrooms (May 2025-March 31, 2026);

c)        the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to allocate up to $14,953 (excluding HST) for the provision of Water (May 2025- March 31, 2026);

d)        a single source procurement BE APPROVED at a total estimated cost of up to $653,200 (excluding HST) for the period of May 1, 2025, to March 31, 2026, for Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. (SS-2025-069), for the provision of Meals, utilizing Housing Stability Services funding as per the Corporation of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Section 14.4 d) and e);

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

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

e)        a single source procurement BE APPROVED at a total estimated cost of up to $341,049 (excluding HST) for the period of May 1, 2025, to March 31, 2026, for 519Pursuit Umbrella Relief Programs Inc. (SS-2025-070), for the provision of outreach supports for outdoor basic needs, utilizing Housing Stability Services funding as per the Corporation of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Section 14.4 d) and e);

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

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

f)        an amendment to the existing Municipal Purchase of Service agreement with London Cares Homeless Response Services (SS-2025-071) BE APPROVED to a total estimated increase of up to $203,707 (excluding HST) for the period of April 1, 2025, to March 31, 2026, for the provision of outreach supports for outdoor basic needs, utilizing Housing Stability Services funding as per the Corporation of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Section 14.4 d) and e);

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

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

g)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to present a report at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee, providing the above-noted executed contracts for information; and,

h)    the following actions be taken with respect to the communication, dated March 14, 2025, from Councillor H. McAlister:

i)        the Mayor and the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to request from the Provincial Government additional funds to open a new shelter location in the City of London akin to the funding agreements that currently exist between the Salvation Army Centre of Hope and Men’s Mission Services; it being noted that this request would include the potential use of Provincial facilities and land to accommodate a new shelter; and, 

ii)        the above-noted communication BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that communications from A. Todd, M. Kaye, J. Brasil, B. Rudland, D. Boyce and Councillor H. McAlister, with respect to this matter, were received. (2025-F17)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to add a new part j):

j)    Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to add McCormick Park to the list of areas where encampments are not permitted and outreach will not be provided;

Motion Passed (10 to 5)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Item 10, clause 2.9, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Item 10, clause 2.9, as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 17, 2025, related to the Provision of Outdoor Basic Needs:

a)        the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to operationalize the components of the above-noted Provision of Outdoor Basic Needs Report dated March 17, 2025;

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

b)        the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to allocate up to $37,033 (excluding HST) for the provision of Portable Washrooms (May 2025-March 31, 2026);

c)        the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to allocate up to $14,953 (excluding HST) for the provision of Water (May 2025- March 31, 2026);

d)        a single source procurement BE APPROVED at a total estimated cost of up to $653,200 (excluding HST) for the period of May 1, 2025, to March 31, 2026, for Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. (SS-2025-069), for the provision of Meals, utilizing Housing Stability Services funding as per the Corporation of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Section 14.4 d) and e);

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

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

e)        a single source procurement BE APPROVED at a total estimated cost of up to $341,049 (excluding HST) for the period of May 1, 2025, to March 31, 2026, for 519Pursuit Umbrella Relief Programs Inc. (SS-2025-070), for the provision of outreach supports for outdoor basic needs, utilizing Housing Stability Services funding as per the Corporation of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Section 14.4 d) and e);

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

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

f)        an amendment to the existing Municipal Purchase of Service agreement with London Cares Homeless Response Services (SS-2025-071) BE APPROVED to a total estimated increase of up to $203,707 (excluding HST) for the period of April 1, 2025, to March 31, 2026, for the provision of outreach supports for outdoor basic needs, utilizing Housing Stability Services funding as per the Corporation of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Section 14.4 d) and e);

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

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

g)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to present a report at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee, providing the above-noted executed contracts for information; and,

h)    the following actions be taken with respect to the communication, dated March 14, 2025, from Councillor H. McAlister:

i)        the Mayor and the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to request from the Provincial Government additional funds to open a new shelter location in the City of London akin to the funding agreements that currently exist between the Salvation Army Centre of Hope and Men’s Mission Services; it being noted that this request would include the potential use of Provincial facilities and land to accommodate a new shelter; and,

ii)        the above-noted communication BE RECEIVED;

j)     Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to add McCormick Park to the list of areas where encampments are not permitted and outreach will not be provided;

it being noted that communications from A. Todd, M. Kaye, J. Brasil, B. Rudland, D. Boyce and Councillor H. McAlister, with respect to this matter, were received. (2025-F17)

8.3.11   (2.10) Emergency Treatment Fund (ETF) Approval of Federal Contribution Agreement  (Relates to Bill No. 105)

At 6:09 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen leaves the meeting.

At 6:09 PM, Councillor E. Peloza leaves the meeting.

At 6:11 PM, Councillor E. Peloza enters the meeting.

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated March 17, 2025, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 1, 2025 to:

a)        severally delegate authority to the City Manager and the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development to approve:

i)         amending agreements with Canada (Minister of Health) for the Substance Use and Addictions Program - Emergency Treatment Fund (“SUAP-ETF”) Arrangement 2425-HQ-000181 (“Contribution Agreement”);

ii)        further agreements with Canada that relate to the Contribution Agreement; and,

iii)          agreements (including amending agreements) with third party services providers  that relate to the Contribution Agreement (“Service Provider Agreement”);

on the condition that they are consistent with the requirements contained in the Contribution Agreement or Service Provider Agreement, as the case may be, and that do not require additional funding or are provided for in the City’s current budget, and that do not increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London, subject to prior review and approval by the City Treasurer or a written designate of the City Treasurer;

b)        authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute agreements (including amending agreements) approved above;

c)        severally delegate to the City Manager, the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or their written designates, the authority to approve such further and other documents (not Agreements) that do not fall under section a) above, that may be required in furtherance of The Corporation of the City of London’s obligations under its Contribution Agreement with Canada, and Service Provider Agreements, on the condition that they are consistent with the requirements contained in the Contribution Agreement or Service Provider Agreement, as the case may be, and that do not require additional funding or are provided for in the City’s current budget, and that do not increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London, subject to prior review and approval by the City Treasurer;

d)        severally authorize the City Manager and Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or their written designates to execute the documents approved under part c) of this by-law;

e)        severally delegate to the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or their written designates, the authority to undertake all the administrative, financial and reporting acts, including signing authority regarding application forms for funding, budgets, cash flows, other financial reporting including financial claims, and directions, consents and other authorizations as may be required, provided that the monetary amounts do not exceed the maximum amount of Canada’s contribution specified in the Contribution Agreement (and any amendments) that are necessary in connection with the Contribution Agreement or Purchase of Service Agreement, as approved in section a) above;

f)        ratify the Contribution Agreement, Arrangement 2425-HQ-000181, Substance Use and Addictions Program - Emergency Treatment Fund, executed by the City Manager; and,

g)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to present a report at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee, providing the above noted executed contracts for information. (2025-C01A/S12)

Motion Passed (9 to 5)

At 6:23 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair.

At 6:25 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

At 6:32 PM, Councillor S. Trosow leaves the meeting.

At 6:35 PM, Councillor S. Trosow enters the meeting.

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the Council recess at this time, for 10 minutes.

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 6:39 PM and reconvenes at 6:50 PM.

8.3.12   (2.11) Additional Emergency Shelter and Day Drop-in Space Update Report

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 17, 2025, related to Additional Emergency Shelter and Day Drop-in Space Update Report with respect to amending existing contracts to implement the Unsheltered Homelessness and Encampment Initiative (UHEI) and additional Reaching Home incremental funding to support those living in encampments and experiencing homelessness:

a)        a Single Source Procurement BE APPROVED at a total estimated cost of up to $3,078,130 (excluding HST) for the period of April 1, 2025 to March 31, 2026 to administer 70 emergency shelter spaces at The Ark Aid Street Mission – “Cronyn Warner” (SS-2025-65) Housing Stability Services funding as per The Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 14.4 d) and e) to the following provider;

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

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

b)        an amendment to the existing Municipal Purchase of Service agreement with The Salvation Army Centre of Hope (SS-2025-68) BE APPROVED to a total estimated increase of up to $511,293 (excluding HST) for the period of April 1, 2025 to March 31, 2026 to provide 18 women’s only emergency shelter spaces utilizing Housing Stability Services funding as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 20.3 e);

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

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

it being noted that a verbal delegation from S. Campbell, with respect to this matter, was received. (2025-S14)

At 7:24 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair.

At 7:28 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Hillier

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

c)    a Single Source Procurement BE APPROVED at a total estimated cost of up to $610,577 (excluding HST) for the period of April 1, 2025 to March 31, 2026 for The Ark Aid Street Mission – “Day Drop-In” (SS-2025-66)  to provide day drop-in space at a location other than a Main Street of a Business Improvement Area (BIA), utilizing Housing Stability Services funding as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 14.4 d) and e) to the following provider;

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

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

Motion Failed (5 to 9)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion be further amended with the following:

c)    a Single Source Procurement BE APPROVED at a total estimated cost of up to $610,577 (excluding HST) for the period of April 1, 2025 to March 31, 2026 for The Ark Aid Street Mission – “Day Drop-In” (SS-2025-66)  to provide day drop-in space at the current location until August 31, 2025 and after August 31, 2025 at a location other than a Main Street of a Business Improvement Area (BIA), utilizing Housing Stability Services funding as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 14.4 d) and e) to the following provider;

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

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

Motion Failed (5 to 9)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by E. Peloza

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

c) a Single Source Procurement BE APPROVED at a total estimated cost of up to $610,577 (excluding HST) for the period of April 1, 2025, to March 31, 2026, to continue limited day drop-in space at The Ark Aid Street Mission – “Day Drop-In” (SS-2025-66) utilizing Housing Stability Services funding as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 14.4 (d) and (e) to the following provider:

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

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

Motion Passed (9 to 5)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

That, pursuant to section 10.5 of the Council Procedure By-law, “the ruling of the Chair BE SUSTAINED?”

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 17, 2025, related to Additional Emergency Shelter and Day Drop-in Space Update Report with respect to amending existing contracts to implement the Unsheltered Homelessness and Encampment Initiative (UHEI) and additional Reaching Home incremental funding to support those living in encampments and experiencing homelessness:

a)        a Single Source Procurement BE APPROVED at a total estimated cost of up to $3,078,130 (excluding HST) for the period of April 1, 2025 to March 31, 2026 to administer 70 emergency shelter spaces at The Ark Aid Street Mission – “Cronyn Warner” (SS-2025-65) Housing Stability Services funding as per The Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 14.4 d) and e) to the following provider;

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

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

b)        an amendment to the existing Municipal Purchase of Service agreement with The Salvation Army Centre of Hope (SS-2025-68) BE APPROVED to a total estimated increase of up to $511,293 (excluding HST) for the period of April 1, 2025 to March 31, 2026 to provide 18 women’s only emergency shelter spaces utilizing Housing Stability Services funding as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 20.3 e);

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

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

it being noted that a verbal delegation from S. Campbell, with respect to this matter, was received. (2025-S14)

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by D. Ferreira

c) a Single Source Procurement BE APPROVED at a total estimated cost of up to $610,577 (excluding HST) for the period of April 1, 2025, to March 31, 2026, to continue limited day drop-in space at The Ark Aid Street Mission – “Day Drop-In” (SS-2025-66) utilizing Housing Stability Services funding as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 14.4 (d) and (e) to the following provider:

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

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

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

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

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 17, 2025, related to Additional Emergency Shelter and Day Drop-in Space Update Report with respect to amending existing contracts to implement the Unsheltered Homelessness and Encampment Initiative (UHEI) and additional Reaching Home incremental funding to support those living in encampments and experiencing homelessness:

a)        a Single Source Procurement BE APPROVED at a total estimated cost of up to $3,078,130 (excluding HST) for the period of April 1, 2025 to March 31, 2026 to administer 70 emergency shelter spaces at The Ark Aid Street Mission – “Cronyn Warner” (SS-2025-65) Housing Stability Services funding as per The Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 14.4 d) and e) to the following provider;

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

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

b)        an amendment to the existing Municipal Purchase of Service agreement with The Salvation Army Centre of Hope (SS-2025-68) BE APPROVED to a total estimated increase of up to $511,293 (excluding HST) for the period of April 1, 2025 to March 31, 2026 to provide 18 women’s only emergency shelter spaces utilizing Housing Stability Services funding as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 20.3 e);

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

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

c) a Single Source Procurement BE APPROVED at a total estimated cost of up to $610,577 (excluding HST) for the period of April 1, 2025, to March 31, 2026, to continue limited day drop-in space at The Ark Aid Street Mission – “Day Drop-In” (SS-2025-66) utilizing Housing Stability Services funding as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 14.4 (d) and (e) to the following provider:

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

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

it being noted that a verbal delegation from S. Campbell, with respect to this matter, was received. (2025-S14)

8.5   1st Report of the Budget Committee

2025-03-19 Budget Report 1-Complete

At 8:34 PM, Deputy Mayor S. Lewis leaves the meeting.

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 1st Report of the Budget Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.3) Alcohol in City Facilities

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager of Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the Alcohol in City Facilities report BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.4) Engagement with Agencies, Boards and Commissions on Budget Consideration

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the communication dated March 7, 2025 with respect to engagement with Agencies, Boards and Commissions from Councillor E. Peloza and Mayor J. Morgan BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (2.1) 2026 Annual Budget Update Process

Motion made by E. Peloza

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

a)    the report providing an overview of the 2026 Annual Budget Update process BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to submit budget reduction amendments for the 2026 Budget Update totaling a minimum of 1.5% of the net property tax budget for civic service areas, with priority to options resulting in permanent budget reductions, it being noted that a preliminary list of options will be presented at the May 22, 2025 Budget Committee meeting;

c)    Agencies, Boards and Commissions BE REQUESTED to submit budget amendments for the 2026 Budget Update totaling a minimum reduction of 1.5% of each entity’s net property tax-funded budget, with priority to options resulting in permanent budget reductions;

d)   the Mayor and the London Police Services Board BE REQUESTED to advocate to the Provincial government with regards to the London Police Services budget on the following items:   

i)    contribute Provincial funding to the Emergency Services training centre; 

ii)   contribute Provincial funding to integrated mental health workers (COAST); and 

iii)  the Mayor BE REQUESTED to advocate to the Provincial government to provide funding to help offset the London Police Service’s operating budget, not dissimilar to financial supports provided in 2024 to 330 small and rural municipalities to help offset costs of police services provided by the Ontario Provincial Police;

it being noted that any cost recovery would be directed to lowering the property tax rate for 2026;

e)    the Mayor and the Budget Chair BE REQUESTED to meet with the Agencies, Boards and Commissions to discuss 2026 budget expectations; and

f)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to convene a special meeting of the Budget Committee on October 28, 2025 for the formal budget release presentation for the 2026 Budget Update.

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (2.2) Surplus/Deficit Policy Update

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the proposed revised by-law, attached as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 1, 2025, to amend By-law No. CPOL.-46-242 being “Surplus/Deficit Policy” by deleting and replacing Schedule “A” to the by-law and by reducing the contribution to the Unfunded Liability Reserve Fund to 17% and dedicating 3% to the Community Investment Reserve Fund; it being noted that the Budget Committee heard a delegation and received a communication dated March 16, 2025 from C. Butler with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (5.1) Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group Deferred Matters List

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the March 10, 2025 Deferred Matters List BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

At 8:37 PM, Deputy Mayor S. Lewis enters the meeting.

At 8:39 PM, Councillor S. Franke leaves the meeting.

9.   Added Reports

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 6th Report of the Council, In Closed Session BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

That clauses 1 to 3 of the 6th Report of the Council, In Closed Session, read as follows:

Property Acquisition – 120 Wellington Road – Wellington Gateway Project

1.     That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 120 Wellington Road, further described as Part of Lots 3 and 4, Plan 312 (4TH), in the City of London, being all of PIN 08357-0093 (LT), containing an area of approximately 5,963.2 sq. ft, as shown on the Location Map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the offer submitted by Wai Wah Fan, Sun Choi Fan (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $726,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”; and

b)    the financing for this acquisition BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report attached hereto as Appendix “A”.

Property Acquisition – 122 Wellington Road – Wellington Gateway Project

2.     That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 122 Wellington Road, further described as Part of Lot 4, Plan 312 (4TH), in the City of London, being all of PIN 08357-0094 (LT), containing an area of approximately 5,069.8 sq. ft, as shown on the Location Map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the offer submitted by Wai Wah Fan, Sun Choi Fan, and Dennis Kai-Wing Fan (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $1,089,000.00 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”; and

b)    the financing for this acquisition BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report attached hereto as Appendix “A”.

Property Acquisition – Kilally Road Advanced Dedications (Drewlo Holdings Inc.)

3.   That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development and the Director, Realty Services, with respect to property owned by Drewlo Holdings Inc. legally described as Part of Lots 37-39 on Plan 82(C); Part of Lots 1-7 on Plan 79(C); Part of Lot 10, Plan 91(C); Part of Lot 6, Concession 3 and Part of Lot 7, Concession 4, designated as Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 on Plan 33R22082  and Parts 1 and 2 on Plan 33R22098 (the “Road Widening Lands”), the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to introduce the attached, proposed, by-law at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 1, 2025, being a by-law to authorize and approve an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (attached as Appendix “C”) between The Corporation of the City of London and Drewlo Holdings Inc. for the purchase of the Road Widening Lands for the sum of $2.00 and subject to the terms and conditions set out in the Agreement and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement.

That progress was made with respect to item 4.4 as noted on the public agenda, (6.1/4/SPPC).

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

None.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

At 8:41 PM, Councillor S. Franke enters the meeting.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 105, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That Second Reading of Bill No. 105, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 105, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Introduction and First Reading of Revised Bill No. 108, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Second Reading of Revised Bill No. 108, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Third Reading and Enactment of Revised Bill No. 108, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by C. Rahman

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 125, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by C. Rahman

That Second Reading of Bill No. 125, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by C. Rahman

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 125, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by C. Rahman

That Introduction and First Reading of Revised Bill No. 127, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by C. Rahman

That Second Reading of Revised Bill No. 127, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by C. Rahman

That Third Reading and Enactment of Revised Bill No. 127, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 103 to 104, Bill No.’s 106 to 107, Bill No.’s 109 to 124, Bill No. 126, and Added Bill No.’s 128 to 130, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 103 to 104, Bill No.’s 106 to 107, Bill No.’s 109 to 124, Bill No. 126, and Added Bill No.’s 128 to 130, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 103 to 104, Bill No.’s 106 to 107, Bill No.’s 109 to 124, Bill No. 126, and Added Bill No.’s 128 to 130, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 8:51 PM.

Appendix: New Bills

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (8 hours, 7 minutes)

Okay, thank you, please be seated. Okay, we’re gonna start off with the land acknowledgement. We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwock, and Haudenosaunee peoples. We honor respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home.

We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area, the two-row Wampum Belt Treaty of the Haudenosaunee, Kefeder Sea Silver Covenant chain, the Beaver Hunting Grounds Treaty of the Haudenosaunee, Nanfand Treaty of 1701, the McKee Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, the Huron Track Treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabek, and the Dish with One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabek and Haudenosaunee. The three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and the Muncie Delaware Nation who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs. The city of London is also committed to providing, making every effort to provide alternate formats, and communication supports for meetings upon request. If you’d like to make a request specific to this meeting, you can contact Council Agenda at London.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425.

And next, we can do our national anthem, presented presentation for our national anthem singer. Hunter Stahl is a third-year vocal performance major at Western University. Aside from her classical training, Hunter is also a self-accomplished singer-songwriter with an album out called The Glory of Spring. Should be great if it were a little bit warmer.

She is also the lead singer of London-based art punk band Wine Problem, who will be performing at this month’s music talks workshop on April 22nd at the Richmond Tavern. Please rise and join me in welcoming Hunter, who will now perform the national anthem for us. ♪ Canada, our home, our native land ♪ ♪ True patriot love with glocks ♪ ♪ We see thee rise true, no strong and free ♪ ♪ Fought and done first ♪ We will move to Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest. I look to colleagues for any disclosures they’d like to make.

Seeing none, I’ll go to Recognitions and we have one and Councillor Van Mierberg and we’ll be doing that recognition, so I’ll turn it over to him. Thank you, Mayor. It’s certainly my pleasure and privilege to share very happy news with everyone here today. Short time ago, the Mayor and I presented a certificate to none other than an Olympic medalist from London, Ontario.

Earlier this month, they had the World Special Olympics in turn, Italy, and this young man, Ben Sow, was a bronze medalist in Alpine skiing giant slalom. And not only is he from London, but he’s also from Ward 10. This is the home of champions. It’s just the way.

So I also have to say that without dating myself, I was Ben’s cub leader and scout leader and it just shows you how great that program is to have someone like Ben. There he is right there. Behind every world class athlete is of course a world class coach. So I’d like to also introduce Harold Metron.

Yes, Harold worked very hard with Ben and she was able to get the results that speak for themselves. So what a team you guys are. Congratulations once again. Ben, all the best here.

Future athletic competitions. We are very proud of you. All right. Thank you.

And I’ll say Councilor Vamere, we’re gonna really want to meet up with the Ward 10 part on the certificate, but we left that out. And to Ben, who was up there in the audience, I was saying, you could be up at the gallery. I know you could get down very quickly ‘cause he won in Giant Swalom, but Stapewood. And we really appreciate it.

It was my pleasure to get to know you a little bit before the meeting as well. And congratulations again. Very wonderful accomplishment for you and the whole city is very proud. Councilor McAllister, you have a recognition?

Yes, Mayor, I do have one. Go ahead then. Okay, thank you to the Mayor. Apologies that can’t be there today.

At the Good Roads Conference in Toronto. I did just want to share some congratulations for two of our staff members. So Chad Archibald and Mark Bennett, they received their Public Works Leadership Development Program certificates yesterday. I just wanted to congratulate them and say a little best of luck in terms of your career at the City of London.

So congratulations. And I’ll just say to colleagues and to Councilor McAllister, no apologies for being a remote when you’re at the Good Roads Conference. I know, and I will say to colleagues, he’s coordinated with me and our GR team to do a number of meetings with government representatives there on behalf of the city. So we appreciate the work you’re doing.

Councilor McAllister, well at Good Roads. I don’t have any other recognitions. I don’t see anyone else. So we’ll do review of confidential matters to be considered in public.

There are none. We have four items for Council in closed session, 4.1 through 4.4. I’ll look for a motion to move into confidential session. Those Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Pribble.

Any discussion on that? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. For our votes, yes. Councilor Van Merebergen.

No, thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries 15-0. We’ll be moving to, so the public can stay here. We’ll be moving to Committee Room 5 for our closed session and we’ll return as soon as we’re done.

Okay, thank you, please be seated. Okay, so that concludes our conference session. We’ll report out on that later on in the meeting. Item 5 is confirmation and signing at the minutes from previous meetings.

We have two sets of meetings, the fourth and fifth meetings held on March 4th and March 25th. We can do those together, so look for motion to approve both of those minutes together. Councilor Van Merebergen, seconded by Councilor Cuddy. Any discussion on the minutes on both sets?

We’ll open that for voting then. Those in the vote, motion carries 15-0. Okay, communications and petitions. There are a fair number of them, but there is one consolidated motion.

They all refer to different parts of the agenda. There’s a big consolidated motion to refer all of those to the relevant areas of the agenda. Someone would like to move that. I’d like to put that on the floor.

Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Hillier. Any discussion on the referral of all that communications to the relevant seeing none? We’ll open that for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 15-0.

We have no motions for which notice was given, which means we’re on to the report section of the meeting. We’ll start with 8.1, which is the report from the strategic priorities and policy committee meeting. I’ll turn it over to Deputy Mayor Lewis to present that report. Thank you, Your Worship.

So I’m happy to stand and present the fourth report of the strategic priorities and policy committee. Colleagues, I know that we had a very long meeting. Part of that was a technical difficulties with our eScribe, but we had substantive debate on quite a number of important issues. And there were some divided votes, but I do want to draw colleagues’ attention to the fact that those divided votes did record your opposition to certain things or your support of certain things.

I just say that ‘cause we have a very full agenda today, and I hope that although colleagues may wish to pull items to record their vote separately still, I just want to caution that if we’re relitigating votes that were substantively won or lost on something, according to an AI assistant that I put some data into last night, we will be here till 10.35 p.m. So I hope that that is not the case. I hope we can be a little bit more efficient than that in moving these items forward. I have been made aware of requests to have the MMP clauses dealt with separately, and the clerk has those ready to vote on each clause separately, actually, so that we can repeat the votes that we had at SPPC on the MMP.

I also know that folks feel differently about item 14, the London Transit Commission, and so that will be pulled. We also have the Community Advisory Committee appointments, which the technical difficulties were not able to allow us to complete. We did actually get to our list for the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee. We were not able to proceed with the other two, so that would be items 10, 11, and 12 on the SPPC portion of our council agenda today.

I’m not aware of anything else, although there may have been some separate votes on some things that folks want dealt with separately at council today. Right now, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14 will be dealt with separately. You can see if colleagues want anything else pulled for separate votes. So while I do that, I’ll just say, unless a colleague wants it, because we actually completed 10, doesn’t need to be separate, you can do that as part of everything else.

We actually got to a result through that process, so unless someone wants 10 separate, I’m just gonna bulk it in with everything else. But so that means it’ll only be 9, 11, 12, and 14 at this point, they’ll be separate. But who would like something else separate from those? Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you, I’d like to pull five. Others? Okay, turn it back to you. Okay, then I am prepared to move items one through four, six, seven, eight, 13, and 15, four, vote.

And 10, sorry, looking at my list, not yours. And you really don’t wanna do 10, but we’re gonna do it. Okay, so everybody’s got that. So the things that we are not dealing with now, not dealing with now, five, nine, 11, 12, and 14, everything else is on the floor.

All right, discussion on the stuff on the floor. Councillor Pribble. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, to the staff.

I just have a quick question to 2.4 downtown, and again, very happy this, going forward with, in the summary, it states the work to begin immediately. Having said that immediately, do we have specific timelines for each of those quick actions, the initiatives? Through your worship, each individual initiative, we do have an anticipated start time. Mostly, they’re all gonna begin at different timelines, though, if there’s a specific action, I could respond to that.

Go ahead, Councillor Pribble. Just a quick follow-up, so we do have the start time, but do we also have kind of the timeline in terms when we start, but also the progress and when we finish? Thank you, through your worship. Yes, we are planning to report back on the progress of the quick start actions, and we will be providing a recommendation as to whether or not to continue any of the quick start actions as part of the background study that will be presented to council as part of the development of the downtown master plan.

Thank you very much, one more question. Okay, any other questions on the full slate of items before us? Okay, seeing none, then we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Deputy Mayor. Okay, I’m now prepared to put item five, that’s the downtown master plan appointment of consultant on the floor. Okay, five is on the floor, I’ll look for any comments or questions. Yes, Councillor Vameer-Wergen.

Thank you, Mayor. So the components will be called separately in nine. We’re not on nine. That would be appreciated.

Yeah, we’re not on nine yet, we’re doing five. Oh, sorry, I’m sorry. When we get to nine, it’ll be separate. For sure.

Thanks again. Okay, comments on five. Councillor Per beau. Mr.

Mayor, to the staff, in the timeline, it states that the final report is going to come by quarter two, 2027. Is that enough time? Because again, end of quarter, sorry, quarter two could be end of June. Is that time for our finance and for the council to all the initiatives proposed for us to consider and to have it in time for the budget cases and for the next multi-year budget?

Or the quarter two should be pushed to quarter one? Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you through your worship.

The intention of, so we are on an expedited timeline to get the downtown master plan in front of this council as it was this council that requested that item. We are very optimistic of the upcoming municipal election and some of the challenges that may arise through lame.counsel if that was presented in front of us. Our goal is to present the downtown master plan near the beginning of Q2. So we are cognizant that we want to put some decisions in front of you so that you have the opportunity to weigh in on those decisions and provide some feedback back to us about any immediate initiatives you’d like to fund through the 2027 budget update.

Further, for the bulk of the main downtown master plan, a majority of that would be considered in a multi-year budget case for the 2028, 2031 multi-year budget. That’s a privilege. Thank you, I’ll just make a comment. If you can please discuss it with the consultant.

I mean, even though it says quarter two, that it certainly would be much more beneficial for our organization at the beginning than at the end. So it gives us more lead by thank you. Any other comments on this? Go ahead, Councillor Stu.

Thank you, I will just explain why I pulled it and it’s because I’ll be voting against it. I just hear from people that another plan for $400,000 is just there’s some problems that are very apparent that get to be dealt with and I just can’t support another $400,000 in consulting for another plan. Okay, any other speakers? Councillor Ferreira.

Thank you Mayor. So this is an item for the consultant report which is Canadian Urban Institute. They have a very, very rich background in this type of work. They have done the downtown Ottawa action plan, the downtown Windsor Revitalization Plan, the City of Toronto Economic Development and Culture Divisional Strategy and Office to Housing Conversion Studies, they’re very well in a very good position of expertise to do this type of work.

I would say that just considering the landscape and how things have changed, this is not a revitalization effort, this is the evolution of downtown. This we need to be able to evolve downtown to fit the, I guess the situation that we’re in right now. So I understand concerns with the new report but there’s no other way to move forward. We do need expert level guidance to bring us onto the right path to where we’re gonna go because it is about the evolution.

We’re no longer talking about revitalization anymore. We’re talking about making sure that our downtown fits within the landscape and will thrive moving forward. So the fact that we have Canadian Urban Institute here with some serious expertise, we’re very lucky for them to come to the table. So I would also say that the plan that’s gonna be developed will be pulling from past plans.

So there will be past plans that if they still have relevant information will be used in this report as well in this development plan as well. So I am looking for full support or anybody who can support this because we do need this. We need to get a handle on our downtown and it is about the evolution moving forward. So those are my comments, thank you.

Okay, thanks, anyone else? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Deputy Marlous.

Thank you colleagues. So I will put item nine on the floor now. This is the master mobility plan. We have in total clauses A through G.

We also have a couple of sub clauses in there. We have a total of 13 votes to get through if we’re going to deal with each of these separately. So you worship them in your hands in terms of how you wanna proceed but I would suggest that any debate happen and then we work through the votes in order as they’re listed in East gripe. So we debate the whole package and then we call the votes separately.

Yes, that would be my preference on ensuring that no one objects to that process. We can debate everything at once. Everybody can have their say and then we’ll divide the votes up. We’ll just kind of go through them in order.

But we’re not gonna redubate at the time that we’re voting on that. So of course, if there’s an amendment, we’ll have a full set of debates on an amendment but you would make that amendment to the full package. You would, so if everything’s on the floor, you wanna amend G, amend G. G goes back into the pile.

Then at the end, we vote on the remaining clauses. Correct, okay, so we’ll do it that way unless anybody objects would be a little more efficient, potentially. Okay, so we’ll do it that way. And I would only suggest that we don’t amend G because G is receiving the communications from the public.

Taken, I didn’t look first when I suggested G. But, okay, so the whole thing is on the floor then. By the deputy mayor, recognizing we’ll vote on the clauses separately, I’ll look for a speaker’s list on any of the items related to the basketball league plan. Go ahead, Councillor Frank.

Thank you, and I had a really great conversation this morning actually with Councillor Cuddy. And we discussed a little bit about the concerns regarding the Huron, Taylor, Gammage, and McNay cycling projects and the infrastructure work for there. And we had discussed the possibility of re-adding those cycling projects back into the mass mobility plan and making the projects medium-term. So a little bit longer out as opposed to near-term.

That would allow staff to seek provincial and federal funding in order to be able to pay for the infrastructure because they have to be within our master mobility plan in order for staff to be able to do that work. And so I’d ask for council support in defeating the committee recommendation to remove those streets from the cycling map. And after hopefully if those are defeated, then we would be able to re-add them and change the term dates. So that’s my only comment about the cycling maps.

Okay, give me one sec. So the part you’re asking for people to defeat is CII. That’s correct, okay. As we’re debating the whole thing, if colleagues make reference to something like that, just try to use the item number so people can make a note.

Okay, so I had to take a moment there because I did say the original plan would be, we try to debate the whole thing and then vote on them separate, but I will say, I have to give some leeway to that because if we do defeat something and councilors have a desire to then, if something remains in there, make a secondary adjustment to it, I’m going to allow that to happen and that would be a new debate because we have to allow the flexibility of people to, if something has changed, to pitch other potential amendments to it. So we’ll try to keep it as focused as possible, but I just want to recognize and just be transparent that I’m going to end up allowing a little bit more on those pieces because of the suggestions and the approach that councilors are looking to take. And that is, should the piece be defeated? Should things not get defeated, then we can proceed as intended.

So I just wanted to clarify that, but we’ll proceed along as we are. I think we’ve got a flag that you would like that defeated and if it is, you’re going to move another motion later to adjust the timeline, but that’ll be after the point that that one is defeated and I’ll deal with it at probably at that time, okay? So other speakers to the entire list. Councilor Rossell.

So if I understand you’re rolling, we’re not getting five minutes on each item, but we’re getting five minutes in the aggregate. So if I want to speak to one of them, I need to speak to all of them at the same time or are these going to be separated for purposes of the five minutes because it’s all together? So what we were trying to do since we had a long debated committee was take five minutes to go through the whole thing. If something gets defeated, people will get another round of five minutes, but my intention here wasn’t to say let’s do A through G and everybody gets five minutes on all of them because I mean, we can do that if everybody wants to, but I didn’t book dinner, so just keep that in mind.

Okay, so, and again, Councilor Rossell, what will happen is if that piece gets defeated, I gotta give the leeway to someone to then make a secondary adjustment to it ‘cause it’s different than what came through committee, so you’d get a full five minutes again at that, so. In which case, I’ll just proceed with my five minutes and try to put everything together in a very summary form compared to the SPPC. Perfect, and would you like to do that now? Yes, I’ll do that, all right.

So I will begin by thanking you for clarifying that. I spoke at length on the Ring Road issue on the Wonderland Road widening without transit lanes issue and on the cycling issue, and I would just like to reiterate my strong opposition, although some of this may be moot now, to the last minute attempt to remove some of the cycling infrastructure from not the east side because I’m not talking about the Ward 2 motion, I’m talking about the Ward 3 and 4 motion. These are essential paths in addition to connecting University of Western Ontario and Fanshawe. Many residents, and I know in my ward in Ward 6, will be going in that direction to shop.

We do have a major shopping center at Highbury and Huron, which a lot of people outside of that area use, so I’m definitely opposed to that. I think the Ring Road motion is very confusing, and could use clarification. I’m not going to put a motion on the floor, maybe somebody who supported it would want to do that later. But I think we need to have a broad discussion with our county partners about transportation, infrastructure in general.

And I would want to see this focus not so much just on the Ring Road, but also other issues, including, and I really think this should be added, intercity transit. So we need to be giving more attention to intercity transit. Finally, my main objection is the Wonderland Road widening. I spoke at length at the SPPC, and I will not repeat my comments, only to say that the staff report, not including restarting the environmental assessment, was very clear.

It was exceptionally evidence-based, and it made it clear that we’d be spending a lot of money, a lot of staff time for not much by way of results. So I certainly hope that that vote changes a little bit. I think it would be unfortunate for us to backtrack. This motion is backtracking from previous decisions that we made that were environmentally sound.

And I think it would also show a disregard for our climate goals and for our desire to not only decrease emissions, but also make these strokes, which is what Wonderland Road is, safer, not more dangerous. So I would urge voting against that component of it too. And I think I’ll just leave it there and people can refer back to the SPPC if you wanna see more detail from me. Thank you very much.

Okay, I have Councillor Hopkins next. Thank you, Your Worship. I’ll take my five minutes here and speak to a number of items. I’ll just follow up with the Ring Road conversation.

And I did support a conversation about a Ring Road. And my understanding is that this Ring Road is not the Ring Road of the 1980s that went throughout the city. And Westdale Born is a road that was part of that Ring Road discussion. I’ve had residents reach out to me, please do not make this road into a highway.

We are improving Westdale Born, but the importance of that Ring Road and the conversation, whatever that is gonna look like, my understanding is that it’s gonna be in the county. I will keep my vote supporting that because it’s worth a conversation. But I wanna stress again, it is not the Ring Road of the 1980s in our city that is going to be going forward. I wanna speak to what we did well.

I think removing the Magway Bridge was something that I was in full support. And really, please counsel supported that in terms of the cost and the infrastructure that would be needed to connect Gainesboro, Windermere. That’s not to say we don’t need to do something there. I think the public spoke about opportunities that we can improve that connectivity, but not the bridge.

I did, on CI and CI, I am going to be changing my vote. I am not supportive of removing any cycling infrastructure, if possible, so that was an incorrect vote. And a disappointment with Wonderland Road. I just want to say, I think we made good decisions about improvements, the BRT, having the four lanes, but having a further six lane conversation, I think is just taking us back a little bit.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. I’m just gonna provide some clarification from the chair ‘cause Councillor Hopkins raised it and I know that a number of Scott questions about it. The motion does not, the Ring Road is not a specific project.

It’s not the iteration that was discussed multiple councils ago. It is a term that’s being used, perhaps we could have used a different term, but a term that people understand. But we’re talking about an integrated transportation network with a highway of some kind or for discussion. But the components of what that would be, I know Councillor speculated the meeting with that could be.

None of that is determined. None of that is specified in the motion. And so for the public, if you see a discussion about a Ring Road, it is not necessarily a discussion about the specific iterations with the specific streets of a Ring Road in the past. It is a brand new discussion with the County and Province about the possibility of that highway or whatever we wanna call it, across the north end of the city in some way.

So to Councillor Hopkins’ comments and the concerns that she’s hearing from some of her ward residents, it’s not determined what we’re even considering. We’ve not made a final decision on this. It’s the starting of a conversation. Okay, I have Deputy Mayor Lewis next.

No, I don’t have you next. I may come back to your worship, but just as a chair, I wanted to bring the point of order, but you’ve already done that on what is actually in F with regard to the Integrated Transportation Network. Perfect. Okay, so you can still go on the list later if you like.

Others who wanna speak to the overall pieces here. Go ahead to Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I was pleased with the decisions that were made at SPPC.

I think there were logical reasons made for the support that I got, a 9/6 vote on removing Huron, Gammage, Taylor and McNay from the Cycling Network. So the thing is, there are already roots there. There is a cycling road to the north and to the south of Huron. There are roots within a block or two to the east and the west of all the other ones.

So in Ward 4, in this cycling network, there is a proposed one for Ashland, which is a connector which is missing and I can see that. And Rectory, which again is another, it’s quite a distance for that connector and we’ve got Western Fair and BMO complex and presumably a fair amount of cycling traffic that wanna go to those centers. So I have no problem in there, but it’s very difficult to justify to a public that has been facing very large property tax increases of 7, 8% over the last couple of years that we’re gonna put in the capital costs of cycling and the ongoing maintenance every year for the cycling, one block from where we have it already. So all four of these are one block, maybe two on some of them.

There are roots all the way to Northland Mall. All you have to do is go up one block. So we have to say to taxpayers, we’re gonna keep spending your money to save people a block and then the residents on that street lose their on-street parking for their elderly mother to come for a personal support care worker, for a block. So I understand people want it, but there needs to be rationale.

We need to say what it is that we’re willing to spend their money on and is there a real purpose behind it? So I had nine to six support at SPPC and I really hope that that support stays because there isn’t a compelling reason to spend that kind of money when we’re facing property tax increases that we are and this is a both-and. There is safe cycling infrastructure already accessible in that area. And I will just make a little note that I am the counselor for that ward and usually that carries some weight.

And through this term of council, I got, there’s a lot of council support for shelters, BRT and cycling lanes in my ward. So I’d like to see the stuff in other people’s wards when they support it and where’s the support for extra and additional ones there. So I am asking for it to mean something that I represent the people in that ward. I’ve spoken with them and that overwhelmingly people are saying please be cautious about the expenditure of money, especially recurring ongoing annual money after that.

Okay, thank you, Councillor Stevenson. So I’m gonna try to do something here when we get to the votes to help because we have the counselor for one ward saying that they would like something related to curons free particularly. I think if I understood correctly before in your comments that Councillor Cuddy was supportive of putting curons free back in but there’s components in the CII that relate to ward four. So what I could do is make those two separate votes that way, because if we bulk them all together, I think that might create confusion and people might not have the transparency to vote the way they want.

So I’ll take some leeway. So my understanding, and I’m just gonna ask a question here, my understanding from the discussion that Councillor Frank and Councillor Cuddy may have had is that it’s here on street that you, I mean, I know Councillor Frank, I think you wanted to vote against them all but you can do that anyways, but or I’m not sure what you wanna do, but the ones in I, I, how do you want, can I divide those in like the ward three and the ward four streets? Yeah, Councillor Cuddy, this doesn’t count towards your time, you’re just clarifying a question for me. So go ahead.

Okay, thank you, you’re worshiping through you and if I could maybe give some clarity to this and very briefly I’m gonna thank Councillor Stu. No, I don’t want you to thank. I just want you to clarify how you want this divided. You wanna put back your street.

Yes, I’d like to pull out your on street. Just your on. Yes. Great, okay, that’s what I needed to know.

The rest of the streets and the class two are all in your ward, Councillor Stevenson. Okay, so when we get to the voting on this, we’re gonna do the here on street and then all the other streets as two separate votes. So you can defeat deleting here on street. No, the II is gonna be duplicated and with a part of II is just gonna have here on street, part of II is just gonna have Taylor, MacK, MacK, Gammage, right?

I mean, if you don’t, if you want them all back in, you can vote against the two separate votes, but that will give Councillors Cuddy and Stevenson the ability to vote the way that they want. They could even support each other, who knows, right? We don’t know what’s gonna happen. But if I divide it that way, does that satisfy everybody’s ability to vote?

Okay, great, I’ll get that when we get to it. So I will go now, Councillor Stevenson, you just finished speaking, I’m going to speakers this again. People who haven’t spoken to the overall thing. Go ahead, Councillor Per beau.

Thank you. I will be supporting actually all the recommendations that came from the committee. And in terms of the streets or additional bike lanes, and I mentioned it during our standing committee, I really think what I’m missing is looking at our TVP in the big picture and kind of looking at the hub and spoke system and looking at the hub as our TVP and other additional streets as the spoke. So I really think that if you look at the master plan, future of London, we have to look at that.

Two reasons for it. And, you know, as I mentioned last time, we always hear Europe, Europe. In Europe, yes, they get you there from point A to B, but it’s not always the straight line. It’s up and down, left and right, but they’ll get you there safely.

Also, the other thing is if we get people more on TVP, they won’t have to smell the smoke from all the cars. So that’s the part I’m missing in our master plan, and I would like to before considering adding any of these streets I would like us really to look at the big picture and look at the TVP. That’s one thing, second thing in terms of the wonderland. I will be supporting the other two additional lanes.

Currently, if you look at the infill, we have approved along that road. It’s the units. It’s very high number. And currently, if you look at even now, the public transportation is from South to North over an hour.

So if we think that we are going to get people from the cars to the public transportation for to take from South to North on wonderland for over an hour, I don’t think it’s going to work. So I will not be supporting any changes. I think for now what I came out of the committee, I do agree with, thank you. Okay, and I’m going to make a clarification ‘cause to Councilor Perbal who said he’s supporting the addition of two lanes.

That is not the motion that is in there. The motion is to reactivate the EA with different parameters. That EA will provide a result and options to council that we make the decision at that time. So we’re not voting on two additional lanes.

We’re voting on ensuring that the EA could be restarted, could consider that option, but it will still consider other options and it will produce a result through the process. So just so we’re clear. And again, so the public’s clear on what’s occurring. Okay, all right, now other speakers.

Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. All right, thank you Your Worship. I will go now. I want to say first of all, I’m generally supportive of all the recommendations that have come out of committee.

I am going to build a little bit on what Councilor Perbal was just talking about though because I’m going to share and I didn’t ask the individual if I could share their name. So I’m not going to use their name, but a local owner of a business in the cycling industry emailed me after the committee and said, I loved your comments regarding utilizing Kiwanis Park as part of the cycling network versus Vancouver Street, classifying stretches of our multi-use pathways as mobility infrastructure versus recreation may be a cost effective way to bring on board year round maintenance for those multi-use pathways in lieu of additional bike lanes and could be a win-win in certain wards and locations. And I agree. And that’s part of what I talked about with the deletions in Ward Two is that between Hale and Vancouver mid-block, we have a very substantive multi-use pathway running through Kiwanis Park.

I use it myself. I can take the Wavell bike lane that runs in front of my own house, which I continue to be supportive of East West and then I can use the multi-use pathways through Kiwanis Park that gets me right down to the TVP. I only have to cross Gore and Hamilton Roads and it’s just a world crossing. It’s not actually interacting with traffic.

And then I’m on the TVP. However, that’s not maintained during the winter. And of course, that is a substantive cost and it’s not in our parks budget right now to do that. And I completely recognize that.

But to Councillor Stevenson’s point, when we put in bike lanes, we are not just putting in the capital cost construction. We are assuming the ongoing year round annual maintenance of those including snow removal. So if there is an opportunity to remove snow on existing infrastructure so that everyone can use it during the winter months rather than building new infrastructure, I think that’s a conversation worth having. It makes sense to me.

If we’re going to pay for operational costs anyway, but we can do it on the existing infrastructure, I think that that could be a win-win. It is not going to work in every location, fully recognize that. But I think that there are opportunities, particularly in some of our more regional parks to be investigating that opportunity. I also am going to pick up on what you were clarifying.

The worship with the Ring Road and integrated transportation. I know we’re going to talk about London Transit a little bit later in the meeting as well. I think that that conversation around regional transit, for me, is part of integrated regional transportation. Even in the motion, it talks about moving good services and people around the region.

So I think that that is all part of a regional conversation around a Ring Road provincial highway, whatever that looks like. Recognizing also that that’s a long conversation. And I think Councillor Hopkins for raising the question that this is not the Ring Road of the early ’90s because it would be a completely different route. London has grown in many different patterns since that time.

And so that route wouldn’t work anymore for us anyway. So it would just be the start of a conversation. I appreciate all the work that folks have put into this. I know that there are some strong feelings, different ways on things.

But I think where we’ve landed provides a good blueprint, ‘cause I think we have to remember at the end of the day, getting this done is about helping set our development charges, study moving forward so that we’re collecting the right development charges so that we can actually build out this infrastructure. Because none of this right now is money we have in the bank that we can move forward on these on. This is something that we have to charge so that growth is paying for growth in our transportation network as we grow as a city. So I ask folks to keep that in mind.

These plans will still change in the future. What we have before us today is not carved in stone. It is a blueprint that our staff are going to use to figure out the finances, to then develop the development charges background study so that we’re collecting the right charges for growth, paying for growth. So even if there’s something in here today that you’re not sold on, I think there’s still opportunities in the future.

And we heard that at committee from our staff that each of these individual projects will come back in the future for council consideration as the funding is in place for them. So hopefully we can give staff that blueprint today to move forward and start the next phase of the work. Okay, other speakers. All right, if there’s none, and I wanna go through and debate all these as we go through, we can start with doing these votes one by one.

So last chance to speak now, okay, good. All right, I’m just gonna, so the first vote is, so you’re gonna wanna refer to the committee report to be able to see this. It’s the preamble in part A, this is on page five of the SPPC report in your council package. So the preamble in part A is what we’ll vote on for.

Yes, Councilor Troso? Point of order, I can’t really vote on part A unless I know how the Wonderland Road widening piece turns out because if that is kept, I will be voting no on part A. And if it’s taken out, I can vote yes on it. So could we just do the order in sort of a cumulative way?

‘Cause I can’t predict what the vote’s gonna be on the Wonderland Road issue. Same for cycling, same for cycling. Your worship, I may be able to assist on this procedurally. Yes.

So just to be clear, the Wonderland Road EA restart, which is further down in clause E, I believe. Yes, to start to restart the rediscover Wonderland Road is not actually part of the maps in clause A. Clause A maps are actually the maps that were in our package from staff. So E and A, we’re proving the staff maps.

We’re not approving the Wonderland Road maps in this clause. The same would be true in cycling. It is the maps that staff provided to us in the package that we would be voting on in both A and C. And then E would contemplate an addition to those maps, but not A does not.

So in doing E first, A may not be impacted regardless, but we do have to approve the staff maps. Councilor Trossa. If that’s correct, that is exceptionally helpful. And I will proceed to vote yes on the first part without prejudice to how I feel about the points that I’ve spoken to, including the Ring Road, the cycling and Wonderland Road.

Thank you. Great, that’s very helpful. And a staff are nodding as that was mentioned. So we’re gonna proceed with the preamble.

And A, which are the staff maps, as originally submitted in the report. And oh, and the piece about I, the expansion of Bradley Ave from Wellington Road to Ivory Road be included in the next improvement cycle. So those three pieces are together. Preamble, A, A, I, that’s what’s on the floor.

I just have the deputy mayor move all of these because he’s presenting them. So we’re not, we already had the discussion, so I’m gonna open that for voting. Opposing to vote, motion carries 13 to two. Fund no team up, and that doesn’t happen very often.

But let people look at that later. Okay, now we’re gonna do B, just B, okay? Everybody’s got that, B, we’re gonna open that for voting. B is the transfer priority network maps be approved.

Council votes, thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to one. Okay, so here’s how this works. We’re gonna do C, which is just the line.

The cycling network maps be approved, except. This allows for Council Troso to support the cycling maps as they were originally submitted by the staff. As we approve the exceptions, changes will be made to the maps, but it’ll be very clear how you supported it. So right now, it’s just the C part without proving any of the exceptions, the cycling network.

We’ll open that for voting. Council approval. Keep closing the vote, motion carries 11 to four. Okay, so this is part A, so now this would be the removal of Royal Crescent East of Clark Road to Wexford Ave to Admiral Drive.

Just that removal is being voted on now. Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Council Troso, keep closing the vote, motion carries 13 to two. Okay, now just the removal of Sovereign Road.

We’ll open that for voting. Councilor McAllister, thank you for closing the vote, motion carries 11 to four. So now Vancouver Street from Trafalgar Street to Wavell Street, just that piece. I’ll open that for voting.

Closing the vote, motion carries 11 to four. Now, this is the part of CII that is just Huron Street, just Huron Street, none of the rest of CII, just the Huron Street piece. Yes, clarification question, who has a microphone? Yes, and quick point of our, so if we vote down this one now, which we’ve asked, then do we immediately put the next on, or do we wait until we finish all these voting and then put an amendment on after?

Oh, you mean the time frame adjustment? I think I’ll just do it right now, just to keep them all together. ‘Cause everybody knows what we’re talking about now. Yes, Councilor Pribble, this is a clarification.

Clarification. - Yes. So here or no, are we supporting the committee’s recommendation, which was to remove? Yeah, so what’s on the floor is the committee’s recommendation, which is to remove Huron Street.

So if it passes, Huron Street is removed, if it fails, Huron Street’s back in, I have a request then to change the timeframe on the Huron Street project, which if this motion is defeated, would be back in the plan. So yes is, keep it out. No is, let it go back in. We’re gonna open that for voting.

Closing the vote motion fails five to 10. Okay, so that means Huron Street is back in, I have, and I’m gonna allow this because it’s a change, and allow an amendment to the timeframe that, I don’t know if Councillor Cudi or Councillor Frank are gonna make that, but could you please just articulate it? Sure, yes. So then the following cycling network near term project, Huron Street, be changed to medium term cycling projects.

Councillor Cudi, you’re willing to second that? I’ll second that. Worship, can we speak to it now? Yes, and this is, I know we talked before, but because this is a change, I’m gonna, this one, I’m gonna allow debate on it.

So yes, you can be on, you can be on this because let’s now. Go ahead. Thank you, Worship, and through you, and I wanna thank Councillor Frank this morning for calling me and making this recommendation, and this is a struggle, your worship, that I’ve had all week, and I’ve met with residents starting last Wednesday morning and working right through the weekend, because this is a tough one. People want a connected road, and they just feel that Huron is a very important part of our cycling route, and I also had an opportunity to speak with Councillor Pribble last week about the Thames Valley Parkway and how we can use that as the 401, and also that may impact how we use Huron in the future.

And I also, your worship had an opportunity to speak with staff a number of times. Councillor Lewis, who’s tired of me calling him about this subject, and others, and I was very grateful, and I mean this sincerely, very grateful and Councillor Frank called me this morning with the solution, and I think it’s a win-win for everyone. Thank you. Okay, other speakers to this timeline change.

Go ahead, Councillor Troso. Thank you, thank you very much, through the chair as adamant as I was to not support the amendments. I think this is just a great example of Councillors trying to work together to not only save time, but move us forward in a positive direction. I need to ask staff through the chair, though.

Just to confirm, my understanding is, this does not really have any substantive effect in terms of what is likely to happen in terms of the work plans going forward, which can always be amended, but this is a compromise that doesn’t make those changes. Or am I just being too lenient on this? Thank you. Yes, go ahead.

Thank you, Your Worship. This project is meant to be a standalone cycling infrastructure project. We do have some infrastructure renewal planned on here on. It’s a shaven pave, so they can proceed independently with the road surface renewal being sooner, and the protected cycle track being in the medium term.

Thank you, through the chair. That’s very helpful, so I will be supporting this amendment, and I thank you both again for being flexible. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I just wanted to say with my amendment out, I’m happy to support this one.

I don’t see anybody else on, go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yep, I will say the same thing, although I supported to remove it, if we’re gonna keep it, I think the medium term solution is a good compromise, and so I’ll support this. Okay, anyone else? All right, so this is the change to the timeframe.

It’s moved and seconded. I will open that for voting. Wasn’t the vote motion carries 14 to one? Okay, and now it’s gonna be the balance of what was in CII, which is Taylor Street, McNay Street, and Gamma Street, which if you say yes, you’re keeping them out, supporting the committee’s recommendation, if you say no, you wanna put them back in, okay?

We’re gonna open that for voting. Yes, if you vote yes, that’s the committee’s recommendation to take these three streets out. So if you would like them in, vote no, if you’d like them to stay out, vote yes. Wasn’t the vote motion carries 10 to five?

The next one is the Windermere to Gainesboro Road, Active Transportation Network Connection be removed from the cycling network maps. We’ll open that for voting. So for error, wasn’t the vote motion carries 14 to one? Okay, and now onto D, which is the sidewalk gaps on major roads be approved.

I’ll open that for voting. Wasn’t the vote motion carries 15 to zero? And now E, which is the restarting, not the widening of a road, the restarting of the EA for Wonderland Road for the purpose of including the possibility of a road widening in the EA assessment and restarting that EA. And then the development charges background study pieces.

We’ll open that for voting. Thank you, closing the vote, motion carries nine to six. Okay, F is that the mayor and civic administration be requested to engage in discussions with neighboring municipalities in the province who are collaboratively on a ring road, not a specific ring road project from the past, but the concept and integrated transportation network that would help move people goods and services within and across the region. So the direction for a conversation, we’ll open that for voting.

Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to three. Part G and the if being noted are together. So that’s the referral of a communication to planning and environment committee and a bunch of it being noted, which were part of it, including receiving all the communication and everything. We’ll open that for voting.

Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, that completes the master mobility plan item. We’ll go back to— - Do we need a mover for as amended, main motion as amended now, or are we covered? Okay, well, we’re gonna do one just in case.

As there was an amendment to clause C. Yeah, I’ll take a seconder on that. Again, everybody’s votes and all those pieces were recorded very clearly as Councillor Hopkins as a seconder, so as amended be approved. But again, everybody’s individual votes were all recognized on all of the components of it, but just because we amended it, we just wanna have a cover all as amended be approved just to be safe.

Okay, so I’ll open that for voting. Present vote, motion carries 13 to two. Now we’re done, the MMP. Thank you, worship, and just before moving on to the next item, I just wanna say thank you to the clerks team for their work in structuring this so it could run so smoothly.

I know it was very complicated. I hope I’m not jinxing it on the next item, which was complicated technically at our committee meeting, which is the consideration of appointments to community advisory committee on planning. This one requires up to 11 members, one of which must be a youth member. So I think we’re in the hands of the clerks in terms of how we proceed on the— Yes, so we are gonna use a different system for this.

Everybody needs access to their council email. You can do it on your phone, you can do it on your computer, wherever you like, but you just gotta do it in your chair. So just give me one sec while we just cue that. I’m gonna do one vote first before this because this is technically not the way our policy says to do it, so we’re gonna do a vote to say, not withstanding our policy, we’re gonna vote this way on these items, basically, which is use a different platform, vote in at once, it will consolidate and produce the result, do an e-scribe, but this is our technical solution to getting this done today and populating these committees.

So I need a mover and a seconder for the notwithstanding vote. I got Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councillor Stevenson. Any discussion on that piece? Okay, we’ll open that for voting.

You’ll see it in the system. That’s the votes, yes. Councillor Van Merebergen. Yes, are we on the— We need you to vote on doing things differently.

Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, so I’m gonna allow debate in this part because technically we got all these candidates on the floor, you’re allowed to, you don’t have to, you’re allowed to say you’d like someone or not. When we’re done all of that, and everybody’s had a chance to speak, or if no one wants to speak, we’ll proceed with a vote, you will get an email, and then you will open that email, and then you will vote from that email. So instead of in the e-scribe, you’ll do it from an email with a different platform, but we’ll only do that after everybody’s had the chance, if anybody wants to, to make any comments on any of the candidates for this particular committee, which I will now take a speaker’s list for, and this is the advisory committee on planning.

Okay, Deputy Mayor Lewis, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. So we had a lot of these committee, advisory committee reports through a planning committee. I appreciate getting them, and I’m gonna take the opportunity to highlight a couple of names that I think we should put on this committee moving forward.

First of all, Jean-Marc Mathier has been an amazing chair for this committee. I know he has met with myself as vice chair, as well as Councilor Lehman as chair of planning committee, keeping us abreast of the things that the advisory committee is working on. They recognized, for example, the challenge that the Heritage Department might have with the provincial timelines and properties dropping off. They came and discussed, can we review these, and help staff narrow the list to what we think as an advisory committee are the highest and most valuable ones to look at.

So they talked to us about that. They brought a motion forward for our approval. We did that. I cannot say enough about the good work that he has done in helping chair this committee through the last little while.

Really a pleasure to work with and thoughtful in his approach to things. I am going to also comment on Mr. Wallace. I know he’s a regular visitor here.

I think it’s very important to have somebody on the committee who understands the realities of what can be built from the private sector side of things. And also one of the names that stood out to me in reviewing these applications was Chris McCaskill, who’s a skilled trades person. And I think having the perspective on a planning advisory committee of someone who actually uses their hands to do the work, whether it’s a heritage property restoration, whether it’s a new build, somebody who understands the nuts and bolts of building with their hands, would be very valuable for us to have on that committee. And also I would be remiss if I did not mention Alex Wilson.

He is applied as a youth representative. He’s shown a great interest in this. He is a Clark Road student in my ward. He has been in actually to meet with the committee chair.

We actually had the pleasure of introducing him to our director of planning. We were up on the seventh floor to show him where the planning department is. Has a great interest in this. When I first met Alex, he was at a town hall meeting.

And long after everybody else had gone home, we were there another 40 minutes or so talking about how city planning works and how the city decides and prioritizes projects that go forward. So I think he’d be a great addition to this committee. But I also thought Paige Murray had an excellent application as a youth representative as well. So personally, I’m gonna be voting for two youth representatives.

I think that they could both bring something to this committee, and so I’m gonna be supporting them both. So I just wanted to highlight those names for folks. That’s Mike Wallace, Jean-Mark Metier, Chris McCaskill, Paige Young, and Alex Wilson. I think they’d all be excellent additions.

There are some other names, and I’ve certainly looked at Susan Jory, who served a term. I’ve looked at Jeff Gard and Mark Ambrosio, who both served a partial term. They haven’t completed a term, and I’m gonna be prepared to send them back as well. So I just wanted to flag those names for colleagues’ consideration.

Okay, any other speakers? Go ahead, Councillor Plaza. Thank you. I’ll be a little bit more brief.

I just wanted to highlight and not repeat anything. Just Jeff Gard, I think they’ve learned a lot along the way with the city processes, and would bring a different aspect. Also, H on your list, Carl Cadogan, you would be familiar with him as the chair of the London Black History Coordinating Committee, and is involvement with the Fugitive Slave Chapel. So he’s worked through a committee with some issues there, so just highlighting those two for your consideration.

Okay, anyone else? Okay, the email should be in your inboxes, so you can open it and you can cast your votes. Should come as open vote voting link. The clerk’s gonna remind you of something, so.

Thank you, Your Worship. As you’re voting, just count the number of votes that you have submitted. The system, once you exceed the maximum allotted, will randomly remove one of the votes if you’ve exceeded it. So please count your votes before you submit.

Councillor McAllister, you got a question? I hate to say it, but it’s not working for me, but I just got to get on with the vote. Yeah, don’t worry about it. Did you not receive an email?

Did you not receive an email? Or like, did you describe how it’s not working? No, I got the link. It’s the first time it gave me an error message this time.

It’s just spinning, it’s not loading. Councillor McAllister, you’re the, everybody else has got it in. You’re the only one who hasn’t. You could give it one more try if you want before, or we could proceed without you, your choice.

Just go ahead, this is, it’s taking a long time. Just go ahead. As the member is present, wondering if you could just say his name’s verbally, is it’s public record? No, he can’t do it for a ball, okay.

Can you, if you’re on a Wi-Fi, can you turn off your Wi-Fi and then try it? That’s one thing that might work. Yeah, I can try, but it’ll disconnect me. So I might, you might lose me first.

Okay, just, oh, try it on your cell phone. Councillor McAllister, if you want. I did mine on the cell phone, it worked well. If you have access to your email there.

Missy, just go ahead. Okay, we’ll proceed without you at your request. Okay, the results screen is going to be shared. So you can flip your monitors if you want to see the results, or you can look up on the big screen over here.

And Elizabeth Hunt is going to walk us through the results. All right, thanks everyone. Voting is closed. Out of the 15 voters in the election, 14 cast ballots.

And we can see that Mark Cambrojio, Harle Kaduggen, Jeff Garde, Heather Carrot, Susan Jory, Chris McCaskill, John Mark Metralier, Paige Murray, Spencer Sandor, Mike Wallace, and Alex Wilson are the winners after counting the ballots. You can see the detailed results below. Each bar represents the number of votes. Yes, and there was a youth representative in that list too, or at least one.

That’s correct. Okay. There were no ties, so it was the clean win. Okay, we’re going to have those names sent to us.

We’re going to load them into a motion. We’re going to approve the motion with those names in. I need a mover and a seconder for the slate that was elected. Deputy Mayor Lewis, Councillor Ferra, as the seconder.

So I don’t think we need any discussion because we did that before. No, it’s okay, seeing none. Then we’re going to open that for final approval. Deputy Lewis, yes.

Councillor Trosto, Councillor McAllister. Do I have to abstain, but in vote? No, you can approve. Yeah, that was basically a selection or process.

This is the actual approval, so feel free to vote. Good Councillor Trosto voting. Yeah, closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, well that was a lot of fun, so we get to do it one more time.

We’ll do that for the appointment with the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee. We’ll start the same way we did before, if anybody would like to make any comments on the candidates, they could do that at this time. When they’re done, we will proceed to vote the same way we just did. So there’ll be a new email with a new link after we’ve had any discussion, any discussion on the candidates.

Okay, well the last notwithstanding vote was specific to the last vote, so I need another notwithstanding vote for the selection of this committee. So moved by Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Hopkins, any discussion, okay, we’ll open that for voting. This is just on notwithstanding our procedure, we’re gonna pick them this way. Yes.

Vote yes. Councillor McAllister. Thank you, closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, now any discussion on the candidates?

Seeing none, you’re gonna get an email, we’re doing it the same way, so you can proceed the same way you just did it. Maybe give it a try, Councillor McAllister on your phone and let us know if it works. If not, we can do the same thing we just did, but I’ll let you give it a try first. You worship, if I can just, for Councillor McAllister’s benefit, if you’re using your phone, have only either the cell phone data or the Wi-Fi on, one or the other, might cause a conflict for you.

Thanks for the advice, we’ll give it a shot. Councillor McAllister, sorry. Are you okay with us proceeding without you? That’s your choice.

Yeah, just go ahead. Okay, all right, Councillor McAllister’s indicated we could proceed without him on the selection process, so we will close that and then we’ll go over the results again. Closing the vote, we have Andrea Butnari, Jessica Quartz, Janelle Cornelius, Dina Leith-Dwarie, who’s a youth member, Amy Ford, Marianne Hodge, Nicole Karsh, N.N. Manon, Brooke Northy, Brendan Samuels, and Lillian Skinner, another youth candidate.

Our winners, after counting the ballots, detailed results are below. There was a three-way tie with the least amount of votes for Laura Lee Bush and Jay-Z, Nicole Karsh and Hayley Bechler. Nicole Karsh was chosen by breaking the tie randomly. This is equivalent to drawing the name out of a hat.

We can proceed with that name, or we can go ahead and do an election based on those three remaining candidates for the final spot. I’ll ask if anybody is uncomfortable with it having been randomly selected as a name out of a hat, they were all equally supported. I don’t see anybody objecting to that. Okay, so we’ll prepare a motion for that entire slate of candidates moved by the committee chair, seconded by Councillor Hillier.

That’ll just take a moment. Okay, we’re gonna open that. Council votes, yes. Noted, closing the vote.

Councillor Trosto voting yes. Motion carries, 15 to zero. Okay, before we go back to the deputy chair, I just wanna let the clerk say a few words of thanks. That was pulling that together on an alternate and getting that done was an incredible amount of work, but the clerk will say a few words to his team.

Thank you, Your Worship, for this indulgence. I just wanted to recognize the team and city clerk’s office, those are partners in information and technology services. That was days of work to quickly pivot. So my sincere thanks to the team.

Yes, and on behalf of council, please pass along our thanks as well. I’ll return to the presentation of the SPPC report. Thank you, Your Worship. So that brings us to the final item that was pulled from the SPPC report.

This is the London transit item. I do need to advise colleagues that on the advice of the clerk, and I’m happy to just put this forward unless there’s an objection from council, that the language on clause B, which had originally read the current London transit commission be dissolved effective April 1, 2025, the language needs to read the current London transit membership be vacated effective April 1, 2025. It really is a housekeeping measure. So I’m just seeking consensus to put that language on the floor as opposed to the original language.

Yes, I think everybody understands we didn’t actually dissolve the commission, the commission still exists. It was vacating the commission’s members. So there are no objections that language will be the language that we work from. And then I also want to highlight the clause D is council member appointments to the London transit commission be referred to the April 1, 2025 council meeting.

That is today. So if this is approved, then we would move forward with a selection of five members of council to this interim board. Okay, so you’re putting the committee’s recommendation on the floor. So what pass a committee is on the floor.

I look for the speakers to this. Councilor Frank, go ahead. Thank you. And I did circulate an amendment.

I’m just wondering if through you to the clerks, if it has to be, this has to be voted down in order to add the amendment or I can add the amendment on top of the existing language. So that’s going to be contrary. It’s a different composition and size of the board. So the process would be if you wanted to have the opportunity to put that down, speak against what’s on the floor now, and then should that be defeated, there’d be opportunity for an alternative.

Thank you. Okay, then I will speak now. So I did share some of my concerns at our previous SPPC meeting regarding this approach. I did recognize that there have been issues, my understanding between councilors and the commission.

I’ve seen some of it, I’ve heard some of it, and I do understand that change is needed, but I don’t necessarily agree with this approach. And so I did circulate a different approach, which would essentially be keeping five city councilors to be approved onto the board, as well as one remaining London Transit Commissioner. And I would suggest and would nominate the person who has the longest historical experience on the commission, which is currently Cheryl Ruth. And then additionally having a member who is a resident who uses a pair transit system be appointed at the next meeting of the SPPC.

So we would be back up to the seven person commission, which is what it’s currently at, but with a majority stake of councilors. So I’m more leaning towards that approach just because I do think that some historical knowledge on the commission would be very helpful, especially if we are making any major governance decisions in the next six months to a year. I personally don’t love the approach of putting five city councilors on here. And then within the next six months, potentially doing another big governance change.

And then six months after that or a year after that, having another governance change when we get back the governance and financial audit. I think three governance changes within a year and a half is too many. And I don’t think that helps anyone with stability. And I do think at a point now where we have major issues with tariffs, with bus delays, with all those issues, I think stability would be preferable.

So I’m not gonna support this at this point, only because I believe that we should have two additional voices, one being a commissioner with some experience, as well as a member of the paratransit community. So if this is to fail, I would put that on the floor, which again is a seven person commission. Okay, other speakers to the motion on the floor, which is the committee’s recommendation, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I just wanna thank Councillor Frank for making those comments.

I too am feeling very uncomfortable with not having the stability and experience and the knowledge from the paratransit community. I think that is really, really important. I’ve been on the commission before, think stability. It’s something that we need.

We’ll have the five Councillors there. Think we’ll have the review, the audit coming to us, hopefully within the next year, and then we’ll be making further changes. As we will probably most likely make changes in the 2026 year as well. So I will not be supporting this, even though I do appreciate the work, the Councillors have done coming up with a solution that hoping that you will defeat this and support another motion going forward.

Other speakers to the recommendation from the committee. Go ahead, Councillor Pribble, and then Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you. And as I said during the last standing committee meeting, I will not be supporting what’s in front of us.

And I’m just gonna repeat kind of the few things that I heard around the horseshoe during the last meeting. And mostly it was the accountability budget results and priority. I just want to mention annual work programs which LTC does on annual basis. And it’s very similar to what we have at the City Health the implementation plan.

And if I look at this from the beginning of the year till the end of the year status, the items, the actions that are in 100% of control of LTC, they are completed. The only ones that are not out of the hands of Director of LTC. Questions, financials, financials are reported during the commission meetings. It is a public knowledge and anyone can see it and anyone can see the progress, financial progress.

ACAC and APSAC are two committees, one under the City Hall, one under LTC. And these individuals are members in terms of the accessibility users, specialized users. And I attend these meetings both of the committees regularly. And I just want to let you know that their comments are that they feel this is the first time ever the commission and the council are actually listening to them and moving things forward.

Could they be faster? Would they like to be faster? Absolutely. But they feel confident we are moving forward.

In comparison with other municipalities, we can do comparative analysis. We are underfunding this service comparable to the same municipalities. And if I look at most of the complaints, they do come with issues of the budgeting. And what I mean by that funding is the roads where they are not covering the entire city and also the frequency which are the intervals.

We have agreed to the audit which are very much supported because we should always look for effectiveness and efficiency and improvement. We agreed on it. We are going through it. We are going to have the results end of the next year.

And I really, I believe that that will be the best way for us to proceed. We have a clear vision, we have a clear plan. Right now, I don’t believe we are making a change from something that we feel or some of us that is not working the best. But I don’t believe we have a clear vision how we are moving forward.

And the additional communication that came through today shows it again, which were actually my previous colleagues just said, we are looking at potential change by end of September and then another one next. This is not an organization that’s in crisis. Yes, there are three members of the board that have resigned but the organization is not in crisis and every organization needs stability. And I don’t believe that this is the motion that’s in front of us would add the stability if anything potentially vice versa.

So I will not be supporting this, I will not be supporting the motion that’s in front of us. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Lewis, thank you Your Worship. So through you, my position has not changed.

I will be supporting this. And I’m going to take a minute to highlight a few of the reasons why. I also would not support, and I’m sorry, I don’t mean any offense, but I don’t know how else to put it. I don’t support cherry picking one member of the current commission to stay on.

If we’re going to have a transit rider and a pair of transit rider experience, I want the new interim board to look at whether that’s even a position on the board is that some other mechanism that they’re providing input through, I do value that input, but is a board position necessarily the appropriate one. I am not sure, and I want the new board to be able to do that work. But a lot has been made, and there were some folks commenting online that this is about the bus pass program or about something else. And for me, quite frankly, I disagree with Council Cribble.

I think this is an organization in crisis. Not just the three board member resignations. But I recall during this term of council, receiving a report card from LTC that said everything was great. And we said, no, it’s not, and we sent it back.

And said, you need to re-examine the grades you’ve given yourself, and we never did get that one back. We’ve talked about the assessment growth many times over multiple features. We’ve heard from our staff that under section five of the assessment growth policy, LTC would be eligible if they submit a business case built around what is growth pressure, not service enhancement, but growth pressure. If there’s growth, if we’ve approved new residences on Oxford Street, for example, and we need additional buses because of the additional population moving there, that’s a measurable that would qualify for assessment growth.

We’ve heard that from our own staff here in our infrastructure corporate services meeting around the assessment growth policy. We’ve had, we heard Council Cribble say it’s partially about funding, and I would agree it partially is. But asking for funding for routes, when we then hear that they actually don’t have buses to put on the routes, even if they were provided the funding, that to me is an issue. So the online booking system, it’s been two years that I keep hearing, it’s just a couple months, it’s just a couple months, it’s coming, it’s coming, it’s coming, and it’s still not in place for paratransit riders and colleagues, we funded fully paratransit business case ask.

So for me, this is not a one off, this is an accumulation of items over the last couple of years that have really built up to the point where I think we need a new direction here, an interim leadership where Council is taking the leadership reigns, also the accountability reigns, to get some changes made, and then to hand over some form of new governance model back. And I’m not married to you what the outcome of the audit’s gonna be, whether it’s that’s in house, whether that’s a modified commission, whether that’s the commission as it is, I think that that remains to be seen. But I do think that we cannot support status quo at LTC anymore, and that’s why I’m gonna be supporting the committee recommendation. Okay, other speakers to this.

Councilor Trossaab. Thanks very much to the chair, I’ll try to be brief. I’m adopting a lot of the things that the deputy mayor just said. I believe that this sort is an organization in crisis.

And I believe this is not a one off, there’ve been a variety of things over the last period of time during this council term. This is not a permanent change. The five people that take this up are going to be charged with a very, very serious duty. And I hope the five people who are elected realize that this is going to take a lot of their time.

I also wanna say that I am not gonna be in favor of any of the amendments that I’ve seen, and I’m going to stick with the committee recommendation. My sincere hope is that in a limited period of time at this five person committee has, they will be able to come forward with not solving all of the problems. We’re not talking about bringing the agency in-house. We’re not talking about dismissing the executive director.

We’re not talking about dismissing any staff. This is simply, and I say simply, ‘cause it’s not simple really, but it’s not of those dismissals, but it’s simply restructuring a board which in my opinion has become dysfunctional. And that’s why I’m going to be supporting the original motion and none of the amendments. Although I do appreciate the thought that’s been put into this, but everyone on this council needs to understand this is a very serious move, and it’s really the beginning.

This is not the end of a process. This is the beginning of a process. Thank you. Councilor McAllister.

Thank you and through the mayor. I did speak about this SPPC. I appreciate in terms of what Councillor Frank has suggested. I do think it’s important to keep some of that institutional knowledge in place.

And I mean, whichever way it just goes, I would just err on the side of caution. I think you have to really set clear parameters in terms of whoever goes on this, what your objectives are, because I can already hear from the public that there’s an expectation that council is coming in to kind of write the ship and that all of the things that we want that are going to get done. And I think you have to set realistic expectations in terms of what’s going to happen. I think the other thing we all need to take away from this is it sounds like communication has been kind of a core of a lot of this.

And so if that’s truly the issue, then whoever goes on the LTC, we need open lines of communication. We all sit on different boards. Some of us take the opportunity to write on behalf of our boards and submit communications. But we didn’t see a lot of that back and forth in terms of a VLTC board.

And that’s not to say it can’t going forward, but I do think that that line of communication has to be open. And I think there was a failure on both parties in terms of reaching out to one another and trying to get an understanding of what was going on. I think having served on some top board to myself, I’ll say there’s sometimes things that go on behind the scenes that we don’t know about. And even the deputy mayor alluded to the SPPC meeting.

He had the opportunity to speak with the chair. Things came to light that previously didn’t know. So I think it’s important that we talk to one another and we understand what’s going on both at the board and the council and what the expectations are. So I won’t be supporting this.

I’d like to see Councilor Frank’s suggestion move forward. But whatever happens, I think whoever takes this up really has to understand what they’re taking on and communicate clearly with council and the public. Councilor Ferrera. Thank you, Chair.

So as a commissioner or a former one who has also submitted my resignation, I can say this was in all the work that we’ve done so far. This has been by far the hardest decision that I have made this council term. And as some councilors know in these long-going discussions, I have been grappling with this decision on what can we do to make things better. I’ve been getting obviously a lot of feedback from riders, of having feedback from formal employees and just feedback of the state in general.

I agree with many of the comments that I heard here. So I’m not gonna go over them. But I do wanna say this is about bringing accountability right here, right as close as we can in the meantime for stability to stabilize. I understand, moving forward, there may be some areas where we might have to adjust.

But we are in a situation what I would consider as a crisis moment. And it’s not just something that has happened recently. This has been an ongoing continuation of events. So speaking generally and broadly, because I do not want to be getting into any type of back and forth arguments, this is for me something that is supposed to calm down the contentious relationship that I see between counsel and the commission.

So like I said, like this has been a very, very tough decision, but it is the right one. And I know it is. I have heard feedback from the community and I haven’t heard any negative feedback from the community. It’s been only positive or inquiry.

Just wondering, you know, this is just, I’m getting feedback that basically is showing me that this means that we’re on the right track. And how it looks forward, especially with the motion or the idea that I’ve seen from Councillor Frank, I do think that maybe a clean slate, brand new slate would be of a order here. So I did say that my name, I would put my name forward, but I’m thinking maybe that wouldn’t be the best idea. I do feel like we need a clean slate here.

So I am gonna be saying right now that I hope that we do get five Councillors or five members of here that do put their name forward. But again, I’m just stressing. This is about stabilizing, stabilizing the service that we bring. It’s about listening to our riders.

It’s about bringing accountability in-house. And it’s about setting us up to ensure that our public transit is able to provide riders what they are asking for moving forward and now. So those would be my comments. I hear the statements that I’ve heard.

I agree with many of them. But just because I am of the opinion that maybe we should be having a clean slate here, I do feel like we, and I like the idea of bringing in specialized transit community representation. And I like the idea of bringing in representation from the general public for our general ridership. But I do think that we should have a clean slate if we do that.

So that’s where I’ll leave my comments for now. But thank you for listening. Other speakers to this who haven’t spoken. So what’s on the floor is the committee’s recommendation as was passed a committee.

If it passes, we would proceed to looking for members to populate the five spots. If it fails, it would be open to alternative suggestions as some counselors indicated they might wanna do. Okay. Yes, go ahead, Councilor Ramen.

Thank you and through you and just to clarify. So we’re not voting on these pieces separately. We’re voting as all one. And now it’s all one unless someone wants to do it separately.

Thank you. I’m not looking to do it separately, but I’m happy to speak now if that’s okay as well. Yes, of course. Thank you, much appreciated.

So I just wanted to make sure that we were all clear on the vote before I had a chance to speak. And I hope to speak to part two if we move for it as well. So first I wanna start by saying, I agree with the points that have been made by Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councilor Troso on this item. I do think that we are at a critical point and I understand how we got to that point of criticality might be up for debate amongst the members that are currently serving on the commission and some Councillors here.

However, what I think is important is a path forward that moves us in a direction of collaboration and stronger communication. And that’s what I’ve heard continuously through this discussion with discussions with my residents, discussions with the community is that there is a desire and a need for us to solve these issues. And so I personally am very supportive of the direction of having five members of council take a stronger seat at the table here and take some more steps to address some of these challenges, especially around some of the governance issues. For me, this came down to some of the back and forths that we’ve had in this term of council with the communication that’s coming back and forth from the commission.

Just a few months ago when we were discussing the budget update, I moved to a motion about paratransit funding and that amendment that I moved was regarding cutting some of the funding while we were waiting for LTC to report back on where we were with the booking system. And the reason for that was because we were not, in my opinion, hearing very clear communication on where we were with a critical matter that we’ve been highlighting since the first budget, the multi-year budget was put forward, but also since this term of council began, we said this was a critically important strategic item for this council. So the fact that we’re two years in and we’re still waiting for that system, riders are still waiting. Paratransit users are still having to call many, many times.

And I realize that this is a relationship with the third party vendor. Those are always challenging when things hit roadblocks. But it’s important that we have more ownership on some of these discussions. And I do think that this is a path forward.

I’m very thankful for those that have served. On the commission, I appreciate that this has been uncomfortable. It has been messy. It has not been the way that we would have liked to, I think, move forward.

But I think that this is a step that we have to take at this time, and that’s why I’m supporting what’s in front of us. Okay, any other speakers who haven’t spoken? Okay, seeing none, so this is the committee’s recommendation on the floor. We’re gonna open that for voting.

Closing the vote, motion carries 10 to five. Okay, with that passing, we now should move towards populating the members of the commission, ‘cause what we passed was referring that to today, which is now, so I’m gonna look to, you can nominate someone, you can self-nominate. If there’s more than five, we will, although I know E-Scribe doesn’t work for 11 people, should be able to work for, we should be able to pull this off with members of council, right, we should be able to do that relatively quick. So I saw Councillor ramen’s hand, then I saw Councillor Hopkins hand.

Thank you and through you. I would like to express my interest in serving on LTC for the interim period. And so I’m not sure if we should go into reason, or if I just put my name forward this time. People wanna give a couple of reasons.

I mean, we don’t know only in five minutes, but maybe if you self-nominate, you can take the time to explain. And if someone nominates you, you can let us know if you don’t wanna do it. And if you do, you could say a few words as well. So go ahead, Councillor ramen.

Thank you. Well, I thought it was important to put my name forward since I also nominated the mayor as well. The last meeting to be determined, but the reason I am putting my name forward is I do feel committed to working strategically and working in collaboration with the other members that are appointed to be able to dedicate the time to be able to move things forward. And so I’ve governance experience, as all of us do in this room, but I do think it’s important from a communications and a governance perspective to put those with experience around the table.

And I’m happy to serve. Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, Your Worship. I would like to put my name forward as well.

First of all, I’d like to thank the members of the former commission for their service to our city. As I think it was, it’s important to acknowledge the time and energy that they put into the commission. The reason I’d like to put my name forward, I’m a supporter of transit. I’m a supporter of specialized transit as well.

I was on the transit commission for about eight months through the pandemic. Those were very, very challenging times for the commission. I know I can do a job and ask for your support. Okay, I’m Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Your Worship, and through you, whether they will accept it or not. I’d like to first thank Councillor Trussow for his comments and nominate him to serve in this capacity. And I would also like to, since Councillor ramen did it at committee, I would like to nominate the mayor. Okay, well, if you’re nominating other people, I’ll go to Councillor Trussow to see if he’s interested in that.

Yes, I would be very pleased to serve. Thank you for the nomination. And would you like to say a few words now, or do you, I mean, you don’t have to, but it’s up to you. Well, I understand that this is going to be a major time commitment, and I’m willing to do that.

And I feel that I do have the capacity to take on a little bit of extra work that’s going to involve a lot of reading of documents and making decisions. I think I’m well suited to this, and I have a very strong commitment to transit and power transit, and the equitable principles that are in back of it, and how it ties in with our strategic plan and other values of the city. And I’ve felt a nagging sort of disconnect over the last period of time being on this council between the ability of Councillors to really, really be more involved in this. This is not a statutory commission, like the Library Board or the Police Commission.

So this is totally within the discretion of the City Council. And recognizing that this is an interim move, and that this is not going to be sort of a permanent thing, and we’re going to make some changes, I’m very happy to do this work. Thank you. Okay, thanks, Councillor Troso.

I’m not going to give a speech, but I’ll accept the nomination from a couple of members of Council. I’ll bring the resources of my office to assist if I can. I have Councillor Frank and Councillor Ploza. Thank you, and I would like to put forward my name to serve as well.

I regularly use transit. I use about two to three times a week, and actually last night I took transit downtown with my toddler, and we were able to use the Dundas Place Field House, and it was an excellent experience. So I really enjoy the service that transit provides, as well as the need we have it for it in our city, and the need for ensuring that it is continuing to grow and be stable. So I’d like to serve and hopefully assist in that process.

Okay, Councillor Ploza. Thank you, putting my name forward as well. You can do with it what you want. I’m good either way, being a cosignor of the letter, that was partly taking responsibility that you don’t create problems or potential problems that you’re not willing to set up and help fix.

Had also been asked by members of LTC if I was willing to serve. I’m sure their intention was for me to serve with them, not as their big case positions. As you know, I’m also the budget chair at the city, past involvement, I’ve had meetings this week, out in the community with paratransit riders, they’re serving on council. I thought when we gave direction and funding that things were getting better, I’m actually hearing that their call volumes of how many times they need to call to book a ride has actually drastically increased.

So we’ll bring those concerns. My son had always used the bus to get to post-secondary, so was well aware of some issues with students trying to actually have access to education, and had recently been involved in providing communication to the LTC for industrial servicing for their consideration in their upcoming plans. I think you know me well enough. Like I said, you because you will know hard feelings anywhere just willing to serve as I had raised concerns.

Thank you. Okay, Councillor Cuddy. Thank you, worshiped through you. I’d like to nominate Councillor Lehman.

Okay, Councillor Lehman, do you wanna be nominated? Sure, I’ll accept having my name put forward. I have numerous board experience. I have had board experience with organizations that were in a bit of a state of change.

Sure, I’m not saying transit is in that state, but for sure, concerns were raised when you have this type of resignation here. One of the first actions I will try to get the new board to do if I’m so elected, will to make sure that this is a temporary board and looking for us to serve, let’s say no later than September. And at that point, get back to the board structure that we’ve had in place up to this point. Is there anybody else who wants to get on this list?

I should pass that first. Okay, so we have seven members of council interested. Suppose we should have thought about the number five little while ago. There’s nothing, so option here is we could have a vote.

It’s also an option to reconsider the number five, change the commission to seven and take everybody who’s interested, which is an option, but we would have to meet the thresholds of reconsideration to do that. The clerks say we can change the by-law because it’s a simple numerical change. I just wanna put all the items out there for council’s consideration. Deputy Mayor Lewis, to take the chair.

I’m gonna move a motion. Okay, I will take the chair and recognize Mayor Morgan. I’m gonna move a motion of reconsideration of the vote that we made just the portion about the size of the commission to five. My intent is if that passes, I would change the number to seven.

So I’ll let you chair this. Okay, so we have a mover for a motion to reconsider. Need a seconder for that. Councilor Hopkins.

Now we will need two thirds majority for reconsideration and the clerk will correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that is not debatable. I’m saying that’s correct, so that is not debatable. So we will move immediately to the vote for motion for reconsideration. Worship just for clarification, that’s only on clause C so that you can adjust the number.

That’s correct, I’m only removing reconsideration on the size. Thank you. So we’ll ask the clerk to get that ready and E-scribe and then we’ll open the vote. Okay, the clerk’s nodding that the vote’s ready, so we’ll open the vote on that now.

Thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries with the required two-third vote pursuant to the council procedure by-law, 12-3. Okay, so now I’ll go to Mayor Morgan so he can put his amendment on the floor. Yes, I’d like to move an amendment to establish a seven-member commission under the same parameters that council had already passed, so just a change in the size from five to seven.

Okay, and do we have a seconder for that? Councilor Trusshouse willing to second that? Okay, so that’s on the floor and that motion is now open for debate and I’ll start with Councilor Layman. So are we married to the idea of having seven counselors as part of this new board?

Or does this open the floor to ideas for other opposition of the board? So Councilor Layman, I’m gonna ask you to remain standing so you don’t give up your speaking slot. The motion as written, the mayor suggested, and I’ll go to him for clarification, shall consist of its specific to five members of council. This would change it to seven members of council and I see the mayor nodding his head that that is his intent, so this would still be specific to members of council and I’ll go back to you for any further comment.

So there’s no opportunity to put forward other options other than this one. That’s correct. This is the motion that’s on the floor right now. Looking for other speakers.

Seeing none, I will ask Councilor Raman to take the chair. Thank you, I have the chair, go ahead. Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. We’re moving down the chain of command from the mayor to the W mayor to the vice chair of SPPC here to chair.

My only concern with seven, I understand that the desire to everybody who wants to be involved can participate. Many hands make for perhaps a little bit lighter work. My concern though is that the bigger the board gets, particularly if there’s a desire to change the meeting times or anything like that, the harder it gets to line things up. And also when this interim board comes back to us in the fall, if there’s a desire to add a voice of a rider and a voice of a paratransit rider, specifically for board positions, then we could get to a board of nine, or we would be looking for two councilors to step back and open those positions for members of the public.

But that could be a recommendation that comes back from this interim board as to what that looks like, giving it a little bit of thought that way. So I’m open to any arguments that folks have on this, listen to the debate. I’m not necessarily opposed, but I’m concerned that the larger the board gets for an interim piece of work, the more unwieldy it may get and the more difficult it may get to moving some things forward. So I’m kind of looking to the will of the rest of council to see where they want to go.

I’m okay with either voting for five or if it’s the majority will to go with seven, I’ll go with that. But I think my preference right now personally would be to keep it at five. Thank you. Do you wanna keep standing or do you want me to return the chair to you with some people on the list?

I can resume the chair now ‘cause I’ve had my turn to speak. I have to keep standing ‘cause I’m presenting the committee report, although I’m not presenting the motion. So in that way, if you wish to speak, then I can recognize you as well. But if you have speakers to the list, can you let me know who they are, please?

Thank you. I believe the clerks may have some added points to discuss around Quorum and then Mayor Morgan’s next on the list. Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. The by-law as written was changing from four to three for the Quorum requirement.

With this change, if it is accepted to go from five to seven, Council would need to consider a Quorum requirement in the by-law, which we are drafting now to allow us to vote on that should it pass. So that is my comment about the Quorum piece. Council will need to deal with that. Thank you for that.

And I think that’s something for us to consider there. Mayor Morgan, I’ll be next on the list. Yes, so I’ll provide my rationale. First off, I think the Quorum piece is easily dealt with.

It’s a change of a number, much like this. It should go to four, should we pass this, or rather than three. We had seven members of Council. First off, we had 10 members of Council say, we’re gonna dismiss the commission, and they’re in the debate.

We all committed to doing our best to try to make this a better organization, provide a number of things, better connections. We got seven people on this Council willing to help do that. And I think given the workload, it would be great to have those seven members of Council willing to serve. I can tell you with your concern about when we wanna restore members of the commission at some point from a recommendation of the Board, it would be my intent to step back at that point.

This is not my intent to go and serve the, try to serve the rest of the term on this Board. I got lots to do. I’m gonna put some resources and help with this particular first phase of this, but I would certainly myself make space for others. If the commission at that time felt it was appropriate, I’m just expressing my intent when I put my name, well, I said I didn’t put my name for it, but when I was nominated, that would be my intent.

So I think you’re gonna have it both ways on this. I think you’re gonna have a wider group of Councillors bringing some expertise. I think given it’s the London Transit Commission, a wider perspective of wards across the city might be valuable and beneficial to the work that needs to be done. So I would ask you, given we supported reconsideration, let’s move to seven.

Let’s put the seven people interested on it. It’s not something that needs to stay that way forever, but I think when people stick their hand up and they wanna do work, I’m inclined to try to say yes to that. So that’s my intent with this particular motion. Thank you, Mayor Morgan, looking for any other speakers.

Councillor Palosa. Thank you. Just, I’m happy with five, I’m happy with seven. I’m happy being or not being one of those.

It really is about doing the work that needs to be done to move this organization forward. Full disclosure, since this would be a board, it would be up to us to set the meeting times. My preference is for daytime meeting times. I know our evenings, especially when you’re trying to balance family and as a single mom, it gets hard.

And I don’t believe this commission actually allows for virtual participation. So it would need to be in person is my understanding. I hear that’s right next to me. So I will go forward with that of just, for you know that I’m stepping up with the hope that we could do meetings that would be need to be in person, but you’re doing time.

If that’s a problem for anyone, just let me know. Sorry, that come out aggressive, but let me know. Thank you, Councillor Palosa. And I think I would just share with you that it would certainly be within the purview of the commission to decide to enable virtual meetings as well.

Looking for other speakers. Councillor Layman. My only concern is, you know, we’re getting, there is chatter about, you know, possibility depending on the auditor’s report, you know, looking at, you know, different ways we have governance for transit. One of them would be to, you know, bring in a house like we did with PUC at some point.

When we get to seven, it’s almost a factor at that point, because it’s almost a majority of Councillors that will be on the board. It gets too close for me to that point of bringing in houses as a temporary board to just basically get through the summer, get to September where we have time to, and in the meantime, have time to repopulate it. So I am not in favor of going to seven, I’d like to stick to the five. For any other speakers, Councillor Palosa, you’ve spoken already.

If it’s a point of order or clarification, go ahead. Thank you. Just, I know it’s our preference, you know, how the vote’s gonna go, but if a member procedurally wrote a fall in order that if someone only supported the five, but the one people beyond the commission, would they potentially remove themselves then? Sorry, I just, I don’t know how to take Councillor Layman’s comments that if it ends up being seven, his preference was five.

If members of that decide they don’t wanna serve, what would be the next course procedurally? Sorry. Well, Councillor, depending on the outcome of that vote, a Councillor could still withdraw their name from consideration. That would be up to the individual Councillor, looking for any further speakers.

Councillor Raman. Thank you and through you. I do really appreciate the fact that so many Councillors have put their names forward, and I do agree that this is something that we all have a role to play in. However, my preference would be for five, and I share Councillor Layman’s concerns around perception as well, when it comes to it being a seven member board.

I do, and as I’ve shared in the communication for myself and Deputy Mayor, I do see this as something where we come back to SPPC with a report at some point in September to be able to provide further governance and structural updates. And at that time, I’d be looking to also bring voices back in through either the governance structure on the commission or through other subcommittees to allow for more writer and paratransit writer voices to be at the decision making table and to be heard throughout the organization. So I do think that when you’re looking to take on a role like this, you have to think about composition size and what is going to be easier in terms of managing the work. There’s a reason our standing committees are the size they are as well right now, other than SPPC.

And so that’s my reason for supporting a five member committee right now. Our commission, sorry, thank you. Thank you, Councillor ramen. Looking for any other speakers on the size amendment.

Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to open the vote, please. Those in the vote, motion carries, eight, seven. Okay, so that amendment has passed and I will return the chair to Mayor Morgan. Okay, so now we have a seven member commission and we have seven people who put their names forward.

Does anybody else want to put their name forward? Does anybody want to withdraw their name, they know it. Then I would look to someone to move a motion to a point. The seven, I see Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Hopkins.

So that was, if I got it right, Councillor ramen, Councillor Hopkins, Councillor Troso, Mayor Morgan, Councillor Frank, Councillor Ploza, Councillor Layman. So Deputy Mayor Lewis is willing to move that into seconder process. I just know, I think I just drafted you as a seconder. Yes, I would second that.

Okay. All right, any discussion on this? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries, 15 to zero.

You worship that completes this SPPC report. I just want to take the opportunity to advise you, I have to take some medication, so I’m going to leave the chamber very briefly. I will be returning. I think we may actually end up taking a break right now too, just for a few minutes, but Councillor Ploza, I want to say something.

I’m happy to do two things for you then. One, I was actually going to request a change of order as we’ve had residents, and we consider the Planning and Environment Committee next, perhaps after a brief 10 minute break, so they can call and contact anyone they want to. Deputy Mayor Lewis can do what he needs to do, and we can come back and adjourn, so a 10 minute recess, if that would be adequate. Do you want to— And the change of order requests for PEC to come back.

Let’s do the change of order first, so people know the change of order passed, and we don’t set them up for some false expectations, so. So you want to do planning and environment committee? Yes. That’s the next committee report.

Okay, we’ll get the series of motions ready. Okay, it needs a seconder while I’m getting it up. Councillor Hopping. We get this ready, we’ll do non-debatable, sorry.

Well, our motion change of the order of business shall not be amenable or debatable, so it is what it is. Okay, it’s ready, this is basically putting a Planning and Environment Committee next. We’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

Make your recess vote, all right. Is anyone, I’m going with 10, ‘cause I have fives and 15, so I’m just going to move 10 in the middle. Okay, motion for 10, is there a seconder? Seconded by Councillor Hopkins.

We’re going to do this by hand, and just keep them up, just in case people don’t agree. All those in favor, opposed? My motion carries. Okay, 10 minutes.

Okay, please be seated. All right, so we concluded the SBPC report. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Lewis, for presenting that. We’ve changed the order, so we’ll now be dealing with 8.4 Planning and Environment Committee.

I’m going to hand that over to Chair Lehman to present the report. Thank you, Mayor. Please present the fifth report of the Planning and Environment Committee. I’ve been asked to pull three regarding the heritage alteration permit of 124 Wilson.

Number six regarding two six three four barn swallow place and number eight regarding 4.15, 4.21, bowler road. Okay, so that’s three eight and six separate. Does anybody want anything else separate that you make a motion then, Chair? Okay, I’ll move, I’ll put one, two, four, five, seven, nine, 10, and 11 on the floor.

Okay, are there speakers to those items? Yep, go ahead, Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, Your Worship. I just want to make a comment regarding number 10, which is the request from your municipality of Middlesex Center or the sanitary servicing.

As when this came public, I had a number of residents in the Lambeth area, making sure I was aware that there are areas in the Lambeth area that do not have servicing. So any conversations that you may have with the provincial government, but I would also encourage you to include some of the orphaned areas in our city. Thank you. The speakers, I’m going to put myself on the list briefly, I’ll turn it over to Deputy Mayor Lewis as he takes a big bite.

I was going to turn it over to Councillor Ramen and she just took a big bite. So I will take the chair and recognize Mayor Morgan. I’m going to make a brief comment because I wasn’t at the committee on the transit oriented development and community improvement plan that relates to several bylaws. I want to thank our staff for their work on this.

You know, having funds like the Housing Accelerator Fund and support from the levels of government allows us to try innovative things. They can help spur development. Having a new community improvement plan around transit oriented development that is stackable with our other CIPs will boost the potential for infill and development along those lines. I think our staff’s expectation is it could be upwards of 667, that’s a very specific number, 667 units or so additional to what would otherwise be done.

So I want to thank them for that work. I know that other cities and obviously our partners at the federal level who helped fund this are very interested in seeing how that plays out. But thanks to the work that staff did to pull together a new innovative program that we can attempt as we tried to build the more housing in the city. Thank you Mayor Morgan.

I will return the chair to you. I don’t have anyone else on the speaker’s list of this time. Okay, I don’t either. So if that’s the case, which it is, we’re going to open the motion that Chair Lamen put on the floor for voting.

The vote motion carries 15 to zero. Go ahead Chair. Thank you. I’d like to put number six regarding 2634 bond, bar and swallow place on the floor.

My apologies, Mayor. Number three, we’ll go with that, which is the heritage alteration permit at 124 Wilson. Okay, three is on the floor. I’ll look for comments, Councillor Hopkins, go ahead.

Yeah, thank you again. Your worship for recognizing me, I ask for this to be pulled. I was supportive of staff’s recommendation, which was to refuse the permit, I understand. There’s some guidelines coming to us down the road, but I was not supportive of the recommendation coming from PACS.

So I just wanted to make my vote known. Other speakers to this? I’ll go to Councillor for our first. Thank you Mayor.

Appreciate Councillor Hopkins pulling this. I will also be voting against the committee recommendation, simply to protect the heritage and conservation district of the area. I have been speaking to matters like this within that specific neighborhood for a while, but we do need to really kind of show that we really are trying to protect any type of heritage attributes, whether it’s part four or part five. This one is a part five, but we need to do that.

I did have discussions with the representatives of the owners there. I do understand the circumstances that they’re in, but I need to stay firm with this intention in my vote going with the staff recommendation, or I agree with the staff recommendation. So I’ll be voting against the committee recommendation for this item. Go ahead, Councillor Troso.

Thank you to the Mayor. I’ll also be voting in favor of the staff recommendation and against against the committee recommendation. If we want to change the bylaw to the extent that we can change the bylaw, let’s change the bylaw. But until we do that, let’s follow the bylaw.

And the fact that a sympathetic property owner presents a very, very compelling reason why they should get relief comes to us, doesn’t take away from the fact that we really need to be ruling on these things based on the physical indications of the property. And I think the staff report was correct. So again, I think that there are a lot of problems with the way this happened. And I have a lot of sympathy for the owners.

But I do want to say that a real estate agent, and I have looked into this, real estate agent is under certain obligations in terms of diligence and disclosure. And I just don’t think it’s okay for people to just go ahead and make changes and then try to get it excused after the fact. And the other thing is, I don’t want to get into a discussion about diminishing the value of the attributes, ‘cause I hear that a lot. Oh, well, this kind of siding really isn’t that important.

Change the bylaw, change the bylaw. But I think what we’ve got here is, we’ve got a law that I think is being not enforced very well, and it really worries me. So that’s my position. Thank you.

Happy Mary Lewis. Thank you, worship. So, you know, I’ve heard three counselors say, let’s support the staff recommendation. Let’s be clear about what the staff recommendation is.

Preserve some blue vinyl siding from the mid 20th century on a house that dates back to the 1880s. So it certainly didn’t have vinyl siding on it when it was built. The staff report even says that the vinyl siding itself does not constitute a heritage attribute. It speaks to a part of the angle of picture of the roof, couple of the other features on the property, which have not been altered.

The staff report also references, and I don’t have the exact number, ‘cause I didn’t have time to look it up, ‘cause honestly, I’m surprised that this was even pulled. The staff report references a number of buildings, and I think the number was 16. 16 buildings in the Heritage Conservation District already have a similar replacement frontage on their home. So 16 other houses have already done this, no problem, because it is not, as Councilor Ferrer mentioned, there’s a difference between a part four, which is an actual heritage value to the property itself, and a part five, which is, well, it fits the general character and heritage asset of the neighborhood, and so we shouldn’t alter it because we should freeze a neighborhood in time.

And I fundamentally reject that, and I hear change the by-law. We actually have provided staff direction to come back with some amendments for us. They just haven’t completed that yet. And to punish a homeowner for going ahead with something that when they delegated to us, they made very clear.

They were apologetic that they weren’t aware because they purchased title insurance instead of doing a title search. They weren’t aware of the heritage designation for the neighborhood. The building itself didn’t have one. So to hold them out as an example of note, we’ve got to stick with the by-law.

We alter by-laws all the time. On actually a planning committee, we change recommendations all the time. That’s why we’re there. If it’s just a black and white interpretation of our report, we don’t need a planning committee.

We don’t even need a council. We can just let the planning department do their thing without any intervention. We have the authority to make these changes because we are allowed to weigh considerations in our decision-making that staff don’t have the ability to interpret. They have to follow the rules that are written on paper until such time as we change them.

But we actually have the prerogative to make alterations to any of those things. And we do it all the time based on circumstances, based on the merits of individual applications. I think the merit of this individual application is really clear. This young couple has actually done an amazing job of making a property that was starting to look rundown and, frankly, a little frumpy look a lot better.

And so I really encourage council to support the committee’s recommendation. Mid 60s blue vinyl siding is not a heritage attribute and we should not act as though it is, in my opinion. Thank you. Councilor Plaza.

Thank you was also not planning on speaking to this one, but I just wanted to weigh in that going into the committee discussion of PEC, my intention was to support the staff recommendation, having listened to the information, having my questions to ask the committee. I did support allowing the retroactive permit to be approved, realizing that to Deputy Mayor Lewis’ point, there’s already homes in this neighborhood with that same frontage on it of the stone, having, it wasn’t a malicious. Let’s do something in beg for forgiveness versus asking for permission. In my opinion, they were in the audience.

They were moved to tears. This is their home, they love it. It’s what they could afford. And they were still improving the neighborhood, making their home look like other homes already in the neighborhood using the same product.

And definitely an improvement from what was there is what the neighbors’ feedback have been to me so far. I wanted to also reach out with a thank you of the representatives of the property. They took my phone call on Monday morning. We had a conversation about concerns of what it does mean.

If you live in a heritage area, but your homes within it, how to easily identify if realtors don’t tell you that it is or your neighbors don’t know what it means either, ways the city can maybe be a bit proactive in helping highlight these gems of neighborhoods and what it means and communication directly to homeowners. That’s a little bit more than a postcard that can get lost in the mail. As we saw with the garbage collection flyers this year, things come differently and they get scooped up and people miss essential information, even though city staff does do that work annually sending out information that is still getting missed. So I thank them for their engagement ‘cause they didn’t have to engage any further with me.

So I appreciate that and that’s why I’m asking for your support of this application that it is against our currency policy, which the current policy might be revised in a short time anyways and looking for ways to disseminate information a little bit more efficiently going forward. Thank you. Other speakers. Go ahead, Councillor Layman.

Yeah, just briefly. I might get clear, this is not a heritage designated property. This is an a heritage district. So there is more leeway with heritage rules and young couple first home and being considerable expense to have to tear off the stone facade, replace it with siding.

And I think the, you know, as Councillor Ploza pointed out, they’re trying to fix it up. And when you have 16 other homes in the neighborhood with similar type of facade, I don’t see why this should be not approved by Council. Any other speakers? Okay.

So it’s the committee’s recommendation on the floor. So we’re gonna open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 11 to four. Here, I’d like to put number six regarding 2634, Barnes, Swallow Place on the floor.

Okay, that’s on the floor. I’m looking for a discussion on that. Go ahead, Councillor Hillier. Yes, thank you.

I will be continuing to vote no on this one project in support of my residents because as they’ve said, it’s the big building on the hill. And if you know, Victoria on the river, this building will literally be on top of the hill looking down on them. So I will continue my vote no on this project. Any other speakers to this?

Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to three. Go ahead, Chair. Okay, I’d like to put number eight regarding 415-421 Bowler Road on the floor.

That’s on the floor. I’ll look for speakers to this. Go ahead, Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, Your Worship.

And I’ll make my comments. And just to let Council know, I will be bringing forward an alternate motion to the committee’s recommendation. First of all, I want to thank the community and the applicant for hanging in here with us this afternoon. It’s been four hours and I really do appreciate it.

This application has been a conversation in the Byron community for many, many years. I’ve had residents continually ask me what is happening with this application. Two and a half years ago, we had six story, 90 units come in with an owner that subsequently owners have changed. And a new application has come forward with a six story, 62 units.

I want to thank the applicant for holding a virtual community meeting. I think I really did hear many conversations, not really understanding exactly what the application was. And I really appreciate the applicant for doing that and for listening to the community. As you can see, there are a number of community members here who were unable to make the public participation meeting.

They had a community meeting discussing their concerns and try to understand staff’s recommendation and the committee’s recommendation as well. As you can see from over 100 letters that the city has received on this application and from the many, many emails that I’m sure you have also received, expressing Byron’s concerns with this application. It starts from where’s the true affordable housing, the traffic congestion, the safety concerns for pedestrians, but it’s also the biggest concern I heard is that this building, that it will be a stark intrusion to the neighborhood. So the community may not like this development that they understand that we need reasonable responsible development and the special provisions that were overturned by the committee to refuse the special provisions is something that will take away the ability for better buffering and privacy around this building and as it relates to the neighborhood.

So I am going to be asking that the council defeat the recommendation A and by doing so, and I hope hopefully I’ll get that support from council here today. I will be putting back the staff recommendation, which is to refuse the special provisions as it relates to the setbacks. The applicant is asking for 1.5 when it comes to the exterior side yard to permit balcony projections. Again, the setbacks being 0.0 whereas three meters, the long-term bicycles as well as the parking setbacks to 0.5 meters where three is required.

So I do want to take this opportunity of thanking the committee though for supporting a couple amendments that I brought forward as it related to the light casting around the rooftop, which is on the fourth floor, which is directly next to a residential property as well as a noise study be used to update the development agreement. So I want to thank the committee for accepting that. That is part of the site plan process. So again, I’m asking you to defeat A and again, I’ll bring back the staff recommendation.

Thank you. Okay, other speakers for this. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship.

So I’m going to encourage colleagues to support the committee’s recommendation on this. I realize you’ve all received a number of communications, expressing some concerns. And so I’m going to take this opportunity to through you, Chair, ask our staff to provide a couple of responses to those through questions. First of all, through you to Ms.

McNeely, we have a civic boulevard designation at this intersection. So as of right, it does a civic boulevard permit six stories. Go ahead. Through you, Your Worship, yes, that’s correct.

Go ahead. Thank you. And so the original proposal that came in as Councillor Hopkins indicated, there was originally a 90 unit six story proposal. It was a large L-shaped block.

There were no step backs in the revised application that’s come forward on the side adjacent to a residential property. It’s important to note that the other, that two sides actually, but commercial properties that we have a step back now on the fourth story that provides a 45 degree angular plane to increase privacy for the residents next door. So through you to our staff, is the fourth story setback actually required in regulation or is that something that the applicant has provided as an accommodation to community feedback based on the planning and urban design guidelines? Go ahead.

Thank you. Through you, Your Worship, these are policy considerations under the city design policy framework of the London Plan. And again, it’s to mitigate from sensitive uses as well as mitigate to allow for other amenities and such. And I think final question through you to staff on this one, Your Worship.

Councillor Hopkins referenced the zero meter setback. That is on my understanding, abutting again a civic boulevard road. Do we have, and have we implemented zero meter setbacks in other locations in the city through the period of the London Plan on residential infill developments? Go ahead.

Through you, Your Worship, yes, we have. However, we’ve learned through having very little or no setback requirement, it then has implications for encroachments, door swings, if we want to have access ways to roads. And so that’s why we encourage a further setback. Go ahead.

Thank you, Your Worship. So I think it’s important and specifically on the doorway swings and things like that to note that the zero meter setback is actually a balcony overhang. It’s not the actual wall of the building. And so there’s still an allowance in there for people to come in and out without actually intruding into the public right of way.

I think it’s also important to note that we heard from staff. And I’m not sure that Ms. McNeely can speak to this because this is more on the transportation side. But we did hear that we’ve heard a lot of resident concern about traffic.

But in fact, I believe it’s 2027 staff indicated that road improvements are on the schedule for this intersection and boiler road. So I’m just wondering if staff can confirm that timeline. And if I got the year wrong, I apologize, but that was what I made in my notes from PEC that we have a 2027 road improvements coming for this area. Go ahead.

My apologies, Your Worship. I was not provided in advance the need for a schedule for road improvements for this project. It’s okay. I would encourage colleagues if they want to take a quick look back.

And I know that Ms. McNeely’s not in the transportation side, but we did have other staff here that day who indicated that the road improvements are coming and the committee heard that for themselves. So when it comes to traffic, the road improvements are coming. When it comes to the privacy concerns, fourth story step back and a 45 angular degree plane has already been provided.

And when it comes to the six story overall height of the building, that’s actually an as of right and permitted in the London plan. I get that this has changed, that the neighborhood is not comfortable with it because it’s going to be the first building of this size at that intersection. The reality is it’s not going to be the last. It will not be an in-field project that stands alone forever.

With these civic boulevards, six stories is a right and other applicants can come forward and ask for the same thing. We’ve got a church, a gas station, convenience and restaurants, plaza across the road. It’s quite walkable for those who want to do that. We heard the applicant indicate planning committee that 15% of the units will be fully accessible for those who wish to age in place and have access to accessible washrooms and those sorts of things.

And so for those reasons, I’m encouraging council to support the committee’s recommendation. The special provisions were not removed without thought. They really are more of an urban design guideline. The zero meter setbacks have been allowed in other locations.

Even the 1.5 meter separation versus the three meter is actually a driveway to a driveway. It’s not a driveway to a residential property where you’re looking in somebody’s window at 1.5 meters. There’s a driveway separation as well. So I’m going to ask council to support the committee’s recommendation on this.

Other speakers? Okay, so what’s on the floor is the committee’s recommendation. We’ll open that for voting. Yes?

Sorry, did Councilor Hopkins ask for part A to be called separate ‘cause they have an alternate or it just seems everything is there? Yes, you’re right. That is exactly what she called for because she supported other provisions and it wanted to do an alternate. Give me a second.

Okay, so because Councilor Hopkins wants to replace the A, just gonna vote on A. If it passes, we vote on the rest. If it fails, Councilor Hopkins would need to or council or anybody would need to insert an alternate A in to make the rest more relevant. So we will, you’re good call, good point of order and we’ll, we close the vote where we open it with just A.

Closing the vote, closing the vote motion fails six to nine. Councilor Hopkins. So I would like to put this staff recommendation along with the revised— Okay, I need a seconder for that. Seconder by Councilor Palosa.

Sorry, so Councilor, you’ve submitted a number of things. Maybe you wanna outline exactly what you’ve submitted. So I’d like to put the staff recommendation, which is to change the zoning just to refuse the special provisions and to adopt C, which is the site plan approval process, adding the amendments that the committee supported as it related to the lighting on the rooftop, as well as the noise study. Just the reason why we’re taking a moment is at the committee, there was an A and a B, the B was deleted, it’s a little bit of renumbering that has to happen ‘cause Council wants to submit the original A and B back in.

So we’re just working on that. Okay, so you’ll see the amendment will say A and B, we’re not deleting the other B. When we get those other pieces gonna renumber, the stuff that was B is gonna be renumbered C if this passes. And then we’ll have the as amended motion with all the proper letters.

So don’t worry that it says A and B, B is not being replaced here. All right, so that’s on the floor, moved and seconded, seconded by Councilor Plaza. Now we can have discussion on this. Councilor, Councilor Hopkins, sorry, go ahead.

Yeah, I just asked my colleagues to support staff’s recommendation to allow for a six-storey, 62 units with the special provisions, along with many, many amendments through the site plan process to allow for this development. Thank you. Okay, any other speakers to this? So this is an amendment, which adds A and B from the original committee reports and original staff recommendations.

We’ll open that for voting. Councilor Van Meerberg, thank you for closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to two. So now we need a motion for as amended, but the C that was not defeated, the B is now C.

All the things that were there under B before are now a C. So that’s what the as amended motion is. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for the as amended motion. Move by Councilor Hopkins, seconded by Councilor Plaza.

Any discussion on the as amended motion? Yes. And just so colleagues know, the original by-law from the committee is here, so that will become, it will become a revised by-law when we do by-laws for this passes or should this pass. We’re gonna open that for voting then.

The as amended motion. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to two. Okay, I’ll go back to the chair. Thank you, Mayor.

That concludes the fifth report of planning and by the work committee. Okay, so now we’re returning back ‘cause we put planning in front of where we were before. So we’re back to 8.2, the sixth report of the infrastructure and corporate services committee. Councillor Ramen is presenting that.

Thank you and through you. I will look to present the sixth report of the infrastructure and corporate services committee. I’ve had requests to pull items 13 and 14, just looking around to see if there’s requests to pull other items. Councillor Van Meerberg again.

Yes, if we could pull 15 on the agenda, thank you. Okay, thank you. So I’ll look to craft a motion to put items one through 12 on the floor, please. Everybody okay with that?

Okay, so one through 12 is on the floor. I’ll look for any speakers. Seeing none, then we can open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Thank you, I’ll look to put item 13, which is 2.10, declaring surplus city-owned property part of Belvedere Park on the floor. Okay, speakers to that. Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

Go ahead, Chair. Thank you, I’ll look to put item 14, which is 2.12, a consideration of an updated low-income seniors and low-income persons with disability tax deferral program on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor. I’m gonna have to hand the chair over, I voted against this item.

Councillor Frank. Councillor Frank, you’ll present this item? Yes, I have to present it and I’ll put it on the floor. Okay, thanks, that’s on the floor.

I’ll look for any discussion. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yeah, so I watched as much as I could virtually. I understand colleagues’ desire to review the program that we have.

I recognize that there may be some fairly onerous eligibility requirements, but at the same time, I look at other, what’s happening around the province, what other cities are doing. I look at our own reality here in London, ‘cause there would be an assumption of some debt that’s not recouped until a property tax deferral becomes available through the sale of a property or whatever, and I wanna check through you chair to confirm if I have the right number, ‘cause I jotted this down in my notes, but now I gotta confirm if I got the number right or where it came from. When we were looking at what other municipalities around the province are doing, am I correct in saying that across the province, there were only 54 uptakes on property tax deferral programs? I have that in my notes somewhere, but maybe that wasn’t, like it was all around this item, and so I may have jotted it down in the committee notes with, as an error, it might’ve been from another document that I was reading, so I’m just asking your staff had in their report what the uptakes have been elsewhere.

When you’re ready. Thank you through the chair. So in, we took a review of various programs across the province, so within the province, so on page 82 of the agenda, we had looked at various municipalities. I think that was the average that we looked at, so generally I think Oakville had 38, Burlington had 11, Paulton had six, some of the smaller municipalities, so it’s varies, Ottawa has 100 and something, and then as of the end, so I think when they were looking at their programs, generally 57 were total that were participating in some of the municipalities we had looked at, so it does vary on the municipality, but what I would suggest is that overall, based on what we looked at, the uptake is in fact low.

Thank you, and it must’ve been the average that I had jotted down, so I appreciate the clarification on that, can’t read my own handwriting sometimes, so that’s on me, so, and I’ve met with a couple of seniors groups as well, I’ve heard their advocacy on this, but I’m not actually convinced that this is the way forward. I agree that we’ve got seniors struggling, especially to meet their property taxes when they’re trying to cover prescriptions and groceries and all those other things, hopefully the removal of the consumer carbon tax today will help them start to meet some of those pressures on their expenses at home, I know on my own gas bill, it’s not an insignificant charge, so hopefully that will assist as well, but I come back to where the advocacy needs to be, and it needs to be with the province on ODSP and OW rates, but when it comes to seniors, it needs to be on the federal government, on Canada pension plan, all these security and guaranteed income supplement benefits, that is where the focus should be, those benefits certainly did not meet or keep up with the pace of inflation when we were looking at 6 1/2, 7% inflationary rates in this country, it didn’t, and I absolutely acknowledge that that’s creating a financial strain, but I come back to the principle that I try and follow in terms of the things that the city takes on, which is that we cannot backfill for other levels of government, and I remember right back to one of my very first meetings, our former city manager, Mr. Hayward, who kept emphasizing that to us in some of our early orientation sessions, that we can’t backfill for other levels of government, property taxes just aren’t meant to replace income and consumer tax revenues to support those social programs. So the intention is good, but I think it’s actually the federal government’s responsibility to address this, because for us, the property taxes are needed to go out and pay for the services that are required to operate our city, and I know we have some reserve funds and things like that that we could draw on, but ultimately we get into situations of debt financing, carrying other folks’ debt, and I know that there can be liens on properties and that kind of thing that can balance some of that out.

So I don’t, like I said, I think the intention here from members of committees really good, but I don’t think we’re actually going to solve. When we hear in the average that it’s about 54, 57 people in the average in a municipality who uptake this program, I don’t think we’re actually gonna solve the affordability challenges seniors are facing by looking at a deferral program. And when we start looking at a deferral program for one group, my concern is that we’re opening the door for other groups to start coming in, and the next thing we’re gonna hear is it’s, well, this group should have a deferral to, and this group should have a deferral to, and I worry about the potential for this to avalanche into something that we cannot manage. So I appreciate the work the committee’s done on this, but I don’t think I can support this.

Other speakers to this one, go ahead, Councillor Plaza. Thank you, hearing that, can we separate A and B and call that vote separately then? Thank you. Yes, we can call those separately.

A is just what colleagues know of receiving the report, B is the action that the committee added. Other speakers, go ahead, Councillor Trossop. Thank you very much, Chair. The issue for me is not what’s happened in other jurisdictions.

The issue for me is not how well this has been taken up in other jurisdictions. The issue for me is what I’m hearing from seniors here in London. And when I’m hearing from seniors here in London, it’s very clear, the increase in property taxes that people on fixed income, low income, is crushing. And it’s going to create a situation where it becomes challenging.

For more and more seniors and more and more disabled people, and yes, there are other worthy claimants here. Right now, this is what’s on the table. Now, I want to remind that the memo that we received makes it very clear that the city has the jurisdiction to do this. This is not a situation where we are stretching our jurisdiction, and really, we’re not back, we’re not back-filling federal government.

We’re not back-filling the province. We’re back-filling the hardship that we’re putting on certain people in this community because of our tax increases. And the fact of the matter is we have the authority to deal with this, and this is not a stretch. And that is indisputable.

So what I’d really like to focus on is the position that seniors on fixed incomes, particularly seniors who have suffered the death of a spouse, particularly them. ‘Cause I’ve heard from a number of people in that situation, and it creates extra hardship. And I think that we have a mechanism here, by the way, the council is not asking the council to enact this today, asking that it be referred to the budget committee. And if I can foresee what’s going to happen at the budget committee, it’s gonna be a pretty tough road there.

And I think what’s gonna happen at the budget committee is we’ll be able to have at the public participation meeting more seniors and disabled persons of low income who are gonna be benefited from this to come out and tell their stories. And right now, we’re just doing this based on the theoretical notion that we shouldn’t be backfilling other levels of government. What we should be doing is providing relief for people who live in London who need it. And if you don’t think that the business plan that comes forward to the budget committee, and if you don’t think the people who are gonna fill this chamber are persuasive, then vote against it, but give them a chance.

Give the seniors and other disabled persons who would benefit from this program, the chance to come out at a public participation meeting and talk to us about what’s happened to them personally. Because this is gonna get worse before it gets better. It’s going to get much worse before it gets better. At some point, who knows when, the province is gonna decide that they finally will impact is gonna decide that they finally see fit to do the long awaited active reassessing properties.

That’s gonna send this to the roof. Let’s have this program in place before that happens. Let’s not say, well, there aren’t gonna, there’s not gonna be a lot of take-up ‘cause other cities don’t have take-up. Let’s get ahead of this and let’s do something that we need to do in London, which is an age-friendly city.

Thank you. Councillor Pluzza. Thank you. Just having heard a comment from a colleague about MPAC and we don’t know what it’s gonna come, but just reiterating that I’ve heard it’s gonna send everything through the roof, that it really is the municipality just looking to collect X amount of property dollars.

And it’s not that everyone’s gonna go up astronomically. We still do it based on what we need to collect. Just we’re not looking to collect more than we need. Just collect that if you would like to qualification from this bar bone, feel free.

But just making sure that narrative doesn’t get ahead of us. All right, Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, Your Worship. I supported this committee and I’m going to encourage you to support it here at Council.

What we’re doing here is we’re directing staff to prepare a business case and have the discussion through the budget process. I hear over and over again the need for opportunities, for seniors to age in place. We are becoming an aging population. I agree that the challenges are going to become greater, just not for seniors, but also for people with disabilities.

It’s something that I have heard over and over again. I’ve heard from groups such as navigating retirement and CARP, the need for opportunities. It’s up to residents to take advantage of these programs if they need it. But this is all about a business case going to the budget process.

I’m hoping you can support it. Speakers, go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I just wanted to say that I will be supporting this.

We do hear from a lot of seniors who own their own home, but the monthly expenses are getting very, very challenging. It’s very stressful. I think there’s very little that we can do as a municipality to help. And this is one within our realm that really, well, we’ll see what the budget case says, but I think it’s a small cost in order to support our seniors at a difficult time.

That’s a ramen. Thank you and through you. So I didn’t support this at committee and I won’t be supporting a business case coming forward on this item at this time as well. My main reason for doing so is when we do have a program in place and my understanding of that program is if the assessed value does increase, there is a mechanism for seniors and those with disabilities to access that program.

Should they meet the eligibility requirements? A new program, while I do believe there is something needed, I do not think that it should come from just the city’s coffers. And I do think that it’s important if we continue to see programs that are being put in place across the province, it speaks to a gap, eventually. So I do think there’s an opportunity for us to address that through advocacy and look for opportunities to do so.

Look, the reality is, is that creating a program and submitting a business case will then require us to look at additional funds to be able to support something like this. There are staffing costs to this. Personally, as I said at committee, I would like to rather than put more costs into administering a program, look at current programs that we have and whether or not there’s an eligibility change requirement that we can make to allow for some additional support. For most people, the change that they’re experiencing, it may not be that they need to look at an option that is in their entirety of their property tax increase, but it may be that they need to look at some other mechanisms to be able to get some financial support.

And so what I see is a need and a program, but I do think that we have mechanisms to create opportunities, whether it’s through the Housing Stability Bank and some changes there within those agreements, to look at other opportunities for support, to top those up as well. I do think that there are opportunities that we need to look at before we create a program, which I think will create an expectation that many homeowners actually would not meet. And that’s part of my vigor fear is the eligibility requirements this. There’s a reason why in cities with a million people, only 110 people have been eligible over the last few years that they’ve had the program.

I think Ottawa’s had there since 2007. You look at Halton region, again, a large size region and you have 57 people eligible. So I do think we have to find the balance of how to support those in need that doesn’t create administrative pressures, that doesn’t increase the budget significantly, where the money is streamlined and going to the places it needs to go, which is to support my income seniors. I’ve added myself to this, so I handed it over to Deputy Mary Lewis.

Thank you, and I recognize Mayor Morgan. Yes, I appreciate the comments from my colleagues. I also appreciate the advocacy by the colleagues who would like to try to do something in this space. I think it’s Meredith, and I think it’s something that recognizes counselors wanting to help people across our city with something that they struggle with.

But I wanna be clear, property tax system is a regressive, not a progressive tax system. It is not meant to try to be income-based in any sort of way, and although we could try to evolve it, to structure it that way, that would be counter to the discussion that we’re having on a new municipal fiscal framework to say municipalities do not have the right fiscal tools to do everything that they’d like to do. Where we can help people in our community is with the discounts rates that we give on transit passes, with the discounted rates we give at our recreation centers, with the programming that we advocate and put in place for populations like seniors. We have things that we can do that are fully within our sphere of jurisdiction, but right now, there’s a federal election going on.

This is a great time for the public to advocate on more supports for seniors. To the federal government and the candidates who are running about OAS and all the other programs that could be federal in nature at the provincial level about social assistance rates, about the things where there is a tax system in place that can be progressive and can assist those who are struggling through financial need. And on the unfreezing of the impact valuations, we’ve already flagged the provincial government that there’s gonna be a big problem if they don’t do something thoughtful before they unfreeze those. And that includes dealing with the disproportionate or impacts of unfreezing.

We won’t get any more money as a municipality. We’ll still collect the exact same money we collected before. Everything will be adjusted, but the tax burden will shift between different parts of the population. And the provincial government needs to be prepared for that.

That’s been an advocacy position of us and AMO and big city mayors. And at that time too, there’s a discussion to be had to say, how do you help those who are struggling to stay in their homes who might be disproportionately impacted by those sorts of tax shifts? So I don’t disagree that it would be great to have an enhanced program. But we do have our program.

There’s not a lot of uptake on it because we can only go so far in this space before we start to tread into putting ourselves at a disadvantage to provide the programming and the things that we need to provide that is fully within our fear of jurisdiction. And yes, I admit to Councillor Joseph, there are lots of things we can and have the authority to do. This is one where, although we have a program, could be expanded, it’s probably not the best way for us to focus given our budget constraints because we can advocate on behalf of those populations and every Londoner can advocate right now through an election process for increased supports for this population who are struggling. It is way more effective to receive enhanced benefits from those level of governments than a small deferral of a part of your property taxes that is gonna get paid eventually anyways.

It’s not gonna provide someone with the permanent support that they need. So although I really commend the Councillor for pursuing the idea, I think at this time it’s probably not one for us to devote our resources to. We get certainly devoted to the advocacy piece on those large items which will have far greater impact for the population that we’re talking about. Thank you Mayor Morgan.

I will return the chair to you. I don’t have any other speakers on the list at this time. Okay, any other speakers on this? Okay, so we’re gonna divide this into two votes.

A is just receiving the committee’s report. So we’re gonna do that part first and Councillor Frank will be as presenting the report will be the mover on both items. So just A, just receiving the report right now. We’ll open that for voting.

Was in the vote motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, and now on B which is the direction that the committee added to prepare a business case. So that’s moved by Councillor Frank and we’ll open that for voting. Was in the vote motion fails seven to eight.

Okay, well that had the yet being noted attached to it. So we don’t have to fix that part. So we’re just gonna have the yet being noted to the A clause. Okay, we’ll just do that administratively.

Okay, back to, I don’t know if you have a chair. Yes, I’d like to return the chair to Councillor Ramen. The committee report chair. I don’t know what we should call that, but go ahead.

Thank you, I’ll take back that committee report chair thing. I’ll move item 15, 4.1, which is the municipal autonomy and revenue generation. This is the letter received from Councillor Frank, Councillor Hopkins and Mayor Morgan. So that’s on the floor.

I’ll look for speakers. Go ahead, Councillor Van Meer-Burgen. Thank you, Mayor. I voted against this at committee.

And sadly, my internet conked out and I was unable to speak to it. So I will speak to it now. The proposal here is to charge mass companies a fee. We know.

I’m gonna focus on the gas. We’re not gonna have, I think if the Councillor speaks, someone else has something else to say, yourself and the speakers listen, you can help them, but we’ll let the person speak. Yeah, go ahead. So one of the utilities, of course, is gas.

The majority of Londoners, London residents, keep their homes with gas. So we come along and charge a fee. What are the things gonna happen? It shows up on the bill of the consumer as another fee that comes out of Londoners pockets.

So in effect, we’re creating a new tax. And that would go for other utilities as well. But I was focusing on the gas because it is so widely used. It is the cleanest of the conventional energy supplies.

It’s all around us. Canada is swimming in it. It’s relatively cheap. It allows Londoners to heat their homes properly.

So now we’re gonna come along. And in the interest of revenue for the city, in effect, set up a taxation system through the utility companies, and we’ll all be paying it. So we’re talking about trying to keep our hefty tax rates and hikes down, but then we turn around and create a new way, take money out of Londoners pockets. So I’ll be voting against this.

It’s certainly moving in the wrong direction. And hopefully we can vote this down. Thank you. All right, I go to Council Frank next.

Thank you. And appreciate the opportunity to speak to this again. I obviously am supportive of it as one of the authors of the letter. And this essentially outlines the desire to have Councillor Hopkins engage in some advocacy for London on our behalf.

As a united effort from across Ontario, is there other municipalities across Ontario going to the province to ask for the ability to be able to generate revenue from using our right of waste? So right now, the utilities do not pay. We have no legislative ability to require utilities to pay through a firm municipal right of waste, although other provinces do. And we are losing an estimated between about three to $9 million a year in potential revenue that we could be generating and then using in various programs that we have here in the city.

I’ll also note that actually Ontario’s natural gas consumption has heavily become reliant on the United States since 2009. And in fact, we’re now a net importer of natural gas. So we do not have it here in Canada as readily available as has been described. Most of it comes from the United States.

So we are heavily reliant on that and who knows if tariffs will impact that as well. So this letter essentially outlines the ability for us to just have the opportunity and the option to generate revenue in this way. Right now, since we are not able to, we don’t. And additionally, it does not require us to.

I’ll also say it’s an assumption that it would be passed on to consumer. Utilities could choose to absorb the cost as part of their operating expenses. Northropkins. - Yeah, thank you.

I want to thank Councillor Frank for bringing this forward. It’s about opportunities for municipalities to get some revenue from these utility companies. And I did bring it forward to the AMO, Large Urban Caucus and Councillor Van Mirberg. And we did have that conversation about what exactly are those opportunities and the whole idea is for AMO staff to look into it and bring back a report so we can better understand these utility companies and opportunities for revenue.

I want to add two things as well. One of the things when we go to the provincial government, we’re usually going out with our open hands. We need money. And this is an opportunity for us to go back to the province and say, province give us, this is what we’re trying to do, trying to create revenue within our own municipality.

Give us those opportunities. It’s not across the board. I think it’s really important that municipalities make those decisions themselves. So it’s starting that conversation and there are many, many unanswered questions as to exactly what this means, but this is the beginning of the conversation.

And again, thank you, Councillor Frank. Hi, Deputy Mayor Lewis, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. So I hear Councillor Van Mirberg and his concerns and I do think ultimately it will get passed along to the consumer.

I just don’t think that of the kindness of their hearts, the energy companies are going to absorb this cost. However, I also appreciate that this is the start of a conversation, much like we talked about earlier with our Ring Road, it may end up nowhere or even the Ring Road may end up nowhere. You might just go around in circles, but it’s the start of a conversation. However, through you, I actually have a question that I’m hoping and perhaps Ms.

Cher can address this. Sorry, I didn’t give you any heads up that this was coming, but I was thinking about it as I was listening to the discussion. So utilities don’t pay to use our right-of-way, but is there any cost sharing when the municipality has to undertake infrastructure renewal in one of our right-of-ways where one of these utility companies has their infrastructure or does it actually drive up the cost of municipal work when we are doing work where whether it’s gas or hydro or whomever may have infrastructure in our right-of-way? Go ahead.

Thank you, Your Worship, and I do know this answer. So it actually varies depending on the age of the asset and the type of agreement we have with them. Some of them are covered under something called Pushwa, which is managed through provincial legislation. The rest we tend to do based on the depreciated value of the asset.

Generally, they’re paying for their own assets to be reinvested in and we are paying the sort of general costs of opening the pavement and repaving. So while I would say Londoners do not save directly in terms of revenue flowing to the city that would share the cost of the general project, what it does do is avoid the need for each utility company in those cases to do their own construction at different times than when we’re in. So you’re not paying as a hydro customer to go in and do renewal and all of that digging and repaving if they happen to partner with us. So we are in many cases able to arrange some very good planned construction with our utility partners, but no, they don’t pay for parts of our projects.

Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. I wish we had more of that kind of partnership with our railways, but that’s a whole other discussion to have another day. So there may be some cost savings realized by us in the fact that they’re not paying to use our right of ways straight up, but then there are different agreements and different partners depending on age of assets and all of those things.

So I will say that I’m willing to support this, but I’m very hesitant because I really am cautious of the fact that when we’re talking about these corporations, ultimately, it’s the consumer that pays. And when we were talking about not just the cost of home heating right now, but I’m mindful of the conversation we keep having around affordable housing. And if this gets added through the utilities when they’re connecting new subdivisions to new homes, that’s gonna increase the price of housing there too. So I think that there is a conversation to be had, but I’m not sure of the outcome.

And I’m not sure where it will lead us, but I don’t think that there’s harm in having a discussion about what the use of our right of ways may look like. So I’ll support it, but I really wanna put a caveat on the, I have some real concerns that ultimately this is just going to be another charge on homeowners. And so I may not be as enthusiastic later depending on what comes forward, but I think work with the AMO partners and having that conversation is at least something that we should be considering. And it comes back to the earlier item.

Property taxes alone aren’t doing it. We know that that system’s not working. And so what does that look like as we start to diversify or try and at least consider options to diversify revenue streams? So I just hope Councilor Hopkins will keep us apprised as to how those discussions go.

Any other speakers? Go ahead, Councilor Lehman. Yeah, I’ll just be brief here. Make no mistake about it, this is a user pay process.

Utilities will pass through these charges to the end user. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. The more you use of a certain service, the more you pay. But this will also include hydro, for those of the people that are charging a car at home and will also include internet services that come through cable.

So it’s not just gas here that we’re talking about. They just understand utilities cover a large range of services that are brought to homeowners. It goes to the bare question though. It is again, as I mentioned, user fees, user pays for the services they use.

I can see it on bills right now, line item, if this goes through. But as was mentioned, this is a conversation to be held with AMO and sure, why not? That’s a conversation. It might lead to some better practices with our utility companies with right away and thinking in more efficient ways to deliver the services to our homes.

So there’s that one aspect. Go ahead, Council Roman. Thank you and through you. I need a clarification on wording.

So the first line says be requested to bring forward the issue of municipal right-of-way fees for natural gas utilities, which I’m supportive of engaging in that advocacy work for, but the next says around charge utilities. So I just wanna clarify the language. I guess, Councilor, I’m not sure where you’re, this is the language that came through the committee. So I don’t know if you will, I don’t know the type of clarification you’re asking for.

Sorry, thank you. So the first part says natural gas utilities. And then after that, it just goes generally into utilities. I’m just wondering if the whole thing pertains just to natural gas utilities, otherwise I won’t be supporting it.

Yeah, so the, well, there’s the way a clerk would read it and there’s the way Councilor Hopkins would read it, who’s being requested to do it. So, I mean, the clerk would say, given that the direction is to request Councilor Hopkins to bring forward the right-of-way fees for natural gas utilities, any reference to utilities below is related to that request of her. My assumption, she can speak for herself about whether she sees this as asking about natural gas utilities or a wider range of utilities. So go ahead, Councilor.

Natural gas is the way I read it. Those companies do not pay the city for those rights of way. So that’s how I read it. Okay, Councilor Robin.

Thank you, yes, and I appreciate the clarification. If it was extended to all utilities, I would remind everyone that we are the shareholder for London Hydro. If it’s just in relationship to natural gas, then this is, I can see an AMO position that they’re looking for support on to move forward, but I would not support on the rest of the utilities. Okay, well, you’ve got Councilor Hopkins’ answer, so it seems to be consistent with your interpretation, any other speakers.

Right, we’re gonna open this for voting on the committee’s recommendation. President Vogue, motion carries 10 to five. Thank you, that concludes my report. Excellent, thank you.

I just wanted to make sure you were done. We’re on to the fifth report of the Community and Protective Services Committee. I’ll have the chair present the report. Go ahead, Councilor Ferra.

Thank you, Mayor. I’m pleased to present the fifth report of the Community and Protective Services Committee. I have some poll requests. I have item 2.2, primary care recruitment and retention program poll request.

And then I have item, or sorry, eight, 2.2 of the committee report. And I have item 10, which is provision of outdoor basic needs. Item 11, emergency treatment fund, ETF approval of federal contribution agreement. And item 12, additional emergency shelter and drop in space update report.

I have those poll requests, so I guess I would look to see if there’s any others. Okay, eight, 10, 11, 12 so far. Any others to be separate? Go ahead.

All right, I’ll put one through seven on the floor, nine and 13 through 15 on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor. Any speakers or comments on that? Seeing none, we’re gonna open that group for voting.

Opposing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. All right, go ahead. Thank you Mayor, I will put item eight. That’s 2.2 of the report, primary care recruitment and retention program report.

Okay, that’s on the floor. I’m gonna look for speakers. Okay, go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, worship and through you colleagues.

I really encourage you to defeat the committee’s recommendation on this. Here we have a request, again, for funding for something that is an area of provincial responsibility. And even in the communication we all received from the Middlesex London Ontario Health Team earlier this week, they acknowledge that this is an area of provincial responsibility for primary care and recognize that there are many important and competing funding priorities that impact the residents of London in our budget process. This is right from their letter.

I also wanna draw to colleagues’ attention that in the communication, it was indicated that the London Economic Development Corporation has made a commitment of $20,000. We are the sole funder of the London Economic Development Commission. That is the services that we contract out rather than having an Economic Development Commission in-house that is committing $20,000 already. We have heard that other funders can’t contribute this year.

They are deciding not to do that, like they did last year. So last year, we had the $50,000 commitment that we made. There were other funds contributed. But at the end of the day, it comes back to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care is responsible for the provision of healthcare services in this province, just like the Ministry of Education is responsible for school funding in this province.

If the Thames Valley School Board was here before us saying we need funding to go recruit teachers, we would say go ask the province. If the Thames Valley School Board was here saying we need money for portables on our schools because the classrooms are full, which they are, but we would say go ask the province. It is a provincial jurisdiction and responsibility to fund education. Just as, it is a provincial responsibility to fund and provide the delivery of healthcare services in the province of Ontario.

When you pull out your healthcare card, it doesn’t say the London Health Insurance Plan. It says the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. It’s got the Trillium logo right in the corner. Absolutely, we need family doctors.

Not just in London, but across this province. The mayor put it really well. This actually should, practice should be illegal, this bidding, out bidding, other cities for doctors. This incentivizing things in a race to the bottom.

So if we put in $80,000, Windsor puts in 100,000. And then Hamilton puts in 120,000. And pretty soon we’re back to an ask for 150,000. And then Hamilton decides they can do 175.

This shouldn’t be the prices right of who gets a family doctor. And that’s the situation that we are in here with this ask. I recognize, again, the funding request is coming from people who are genuinely trying to do something good. I recognize that.

I applaud the work that they’ve done so far. But they are asking the wrong level of government. And every time we get this ask, we cannot just say, okay, well, we agree, it’s the province, but we’re gonna do it anyway. Whether it’s 50,000 or 80,000.

As we go through a budget process, these things start to add up to hundreds of thousands. And the hundreds of thousands start to add up to millions. And we’ve talked about the property tax pressures we have. We talked about it on the seniors property tax deferral motion.

We’ve talked about it multiple times tonight, the pressures of these things. Now we’re just going to, again, fund something that the province should be funding. I ask you to vote this recommendation down. Thank the folks who have been involved for their work.

Continue the advocacy with the province. Continue working with the Ontario Medical Association as we did at AMO, as we heard them say at AMO. We’re not asking, we heard the medical association say, we’re not asking you to fund. We’re asking you to advocate.

So let’s do that. But let’s not continue to spend municipal dollars on something that really is. And I realize that there are folks who say, jurisdictional or not, we should do it because Londoners need it. But when we do that, we are just letting other levels of government off the hook for their responsibilities.

And we need to, in my opinion, not do that. We need to say healthcare is the province’s job just as education is. And they are the ones who need to do and lead the doctor recruitment program. Okay, other speakers, go ahead, Councillor Plaza.

Thank you. And I appreciate the meetings I’ve been done beforehand behind the scenes as people appear at committee and answer questions. And those who’ve been here with us tonight for a long time in the gallery. I was in no one this in the beginning.

I remain such just realizing the provincial election has concluded. And I believe we still have excellent advocates in the city. Happy if there’s an opportunity for joint advocacy and a request for London city council to do that. In such, I’m asking for A to be called separate from B and C.

Thank you. Okay, other speakers, go ahead, Councillor Plaza. Here we are again, again. We’re not putting the needs of Londoners first.

We’re falling back on hyper technical and I think wrong, which I’ll explain why, jurisdictional arguments. We can do this. We did it last year. We can do it again.

So I guess I need to just go back to square one and go to the municipal act since there seems to be some question about this. A single tier municipality, that’s us, may pass bylaws respecting the following matters. Economic, social and environmental well-being of the municipality. I think it would be hard to argue that this is not under the head of economic well-being because of all the literature that we look at and accept about how health is a social determinant welfare.

There’s a link there. Social, economic, social. Well, certainly this is a social issue and it’s particularly a social issue because we see from the reports that we’ve received that the lack of family doctors in this city has a disparate effect. It has a disparate effect across the city and it has a particularly onerous effect.

When those areas of the city where people are of lower income, that’s five, six. Well, if you think I’m splitting hairs with the economic and social argument, how about six? Health, safety and well-being of persons. Well, right there, we’re clearly within six.

We’re not, nobody is asking you to stretch powers of the municipality here. Once again, could the province do this? Yes. Should the province do this?

Yes. Could other senior levels of government do a better job? Yes, but that doesn’t mean that the city of London turns its back, particularly on some of our most vulnerable people. This is not a race to the bottom.

This is treading water to stay in the middle. And with this amount of money, there’s not a lot of money there on the table to do things like the onerous type of bidding wars that people seem to be worried about. You’re not gonna get very far with $80,000. What we’re gonna get with $80,000 is we’re gonna keep the staff working on this project and keep the phones open.

And by the way, it’s indisputable that the report that we received back, evaluating the first year program was stellar in terms of what the people who are running this program have been able to do. Our London person has risen to the level of provincial leadership. She’s doing something right. She’s doing something very effective.

And as she talked about at the committee, she’s already showing results. Why would we want to cut that off based on a species? And I think incorrect jurisdiction argument. But that’s what we’re doing.

We do it time and time again. So I really urge you to support this program. It’s $80,000. It’s coming from a reserve account.

And I just think we should not be splitting hairs about jurisdictional issues so much as starting from the point of view of what do Londoners need? Londoners need this. So I’m going to urge you all to vote in favor of this measure. Thank you very much.

Councillor ramen. Okay, thank you. So I want to start by saying I do appreciate the work that has went into the past efforts to be able to address some of the concerns that we have around our physician shortage in our community. The challenge that I have going forward, though, is what I’ve heard continuously through this program.

It is that in order to really, truly compete for doctors in our community, we actually have to invest more than $80,000. So if you look at media reports from this week alone, you’ll see Aurelia just put $500,000 into a program like this. You’ll see other communities which are putting more. So as we talked about this idea of it being a race to the bottom, which they referred to as an arms race, I think what we’re seeing here is we’re seeing that competitive nature of other cities and communities saying, you know what, in order to recruit physicians, we are now going to have to up the ante.

So what we started with, I think, was an attempt to get an idea of the landscape, to look at what the opportunities are in front of us, but we heard exactly what we heard from the beginning, which was that it would take greater incentives to be able to move forward. I do see some valuable information, though, that has come out of the work that has been done already. And again, I’m very appreciative of that work. I see opportunities that maybe we look at morphing into other committees or other organizations within the city.

I know when the program was first launched, LEDC talked about the need for a program like this in order to be able to say to industries moving into our community that we had a program because they wanted to know that if their employees were coming here, they would have opportunities to find doctors. Unfortunately, though, even with recruiting some this year, the need is just so great that we need a bigger strategy. And again, we had a commitment right before the provincial election was called for greater action on this file. So for me, we need to go back now and see what that action is going to be.

And for Londoners, I know that may not give you a lot of hope you want to maybe see us invest in a program like this. I will tell you, ultimately, we need to turn our advocacy back to other levels of government who can do more with more. When you appoint somebody like Dr. Jane Philpott to look at this problem provincially, you’re saying that you are committing to a strategy which they have to find every Ontario doctor in the next, I believe it’s five-year target to attach them to a family doctor.

In the meantime, though, I do think there are some things that we can continue to do, perhaps with this partnership. It looks like there’s still some opportunity. So I welcome another conversation at CAPS from supporting organizations that maybe are still willing to put their $100,000 on the table for what opportunities that could create. I do think there is value in having additional conversation about clinic needs.

I also think it’s valuable for members of council to continue to advocate to OMA, the Ontario Medical Association, to advocate to our provincial partners as well for greater supports and the needs of Londoners going forward. Councillor Hopkins. - Thank you, and just to follow up on Councillor Ramen’s comments about a bigger strategy, I think I definitely agree we probably do need a larger one. And I know that I’ve heard the mayor speak about other opportunities that we can have supports for these healthcare teams in our city.

Unfortunately, healthcare has been downloaded to us. It’s been going on for many, many years. So we have about 100,000 Londoners that do not even have a family doctor. To me, $80,000 is not a lot of money to support recruitment.

And we’ve seen results from last year. We’ve seen six new doctors come into our community. They’re still working on 12 more. That should continue.

And as much as I would like to see great results, I think any kind of result is something better than nothing. I had a visit with my family doctor. First of all, I’m fortunate to have one. But I’m also hearing from my family doctor, the need for mental health supports is great in terms of the need for people to be able to have a family doctor because they have nowhere to go.

So these things to me are something is better than nothing, 80,000 compared to what other municipalities are doing is not to me competing with them. It’s not about money. A lot of municipalities are investing more money. But it’s something to not do anything really is a challenge.

When it comes to advocacy, AMO is doing quite a bit at the AMO table. They know it’s a concern with municipalities. We cannot continue to do this. So I want to make sure that you are aware of that.

I’ve been asked to sit on the health working task force of AMO too, so I’m very, very interested in having these conversations with you. And I really would encourage you to do something as opposed to nothing. Thank you. Councillor Ferrer.

Thank you, Mayor. Just listening to the comments here, I agree with everybody. I think everybody’s comments here on your reasoning is correct. I do see it’s interesting to have different conclusions from the same points.

But everything that I’ve heard here with the points of why you are in support or are not in support, that actual content, those points, I couldn’t agree more. And I see that we’re coming to different conclusions. Now, I supported this at committee. And the real reason that I really think that— and if we’re talking about backfilling provincial obligations and responsibilities, we really got to kind of reduce it down to what’s truly important here.

And I’ve heard the comment, there’s over 100,000 Londoners without a doctor. And to the population that I know, that’s almost a quarter of the population of this city doesn’t have a primary care physician. And that, to me, that is very important. We should not be doing— we should not have that situation.

Now, I understand a lot of it is out of our control. And a lot of it has been in the making for many years. But I also see that we did just pass a provincial election. I believe Councillor Palosa made that mention.

And during that time of that provincial election, I didn’t really see too much focus on the health care component, the real big discussion points that we see revolving around this chambers and in this city for my entire term. And before, we’re not really within the focus, as far as I’m concerned, during that election. And I do want to see advocacy continue with the province. But at the same time, true advocacy, especially when it comes to any governing body, really comes through the election itself.

And for me, from what I’ve seen, I am worried that we are going to see another four years of this situation, which is why I would say, let’s support this item. Going to what we’ve seen, the results that we’ve seen, that’s six doctors that we’ve brought on board in 2024. And if you really break it down, $80,000, six doctors, that’s like $13,000, a doctor with no incentives, really, sign on bonus incentives that we’re competing with with other municipalities. And I would also say that what’s in the pipeline coming forward?

We have, I believe, just over 61, 60 retirements pending right now. So we are going to see the number of people in London without a family physician increase. So I hear the comments, we’re treading water? Yeah, we are treading water.

But we’ve got to keep our head in the game. And we need to give whatever we can to make sure that we can support this initiative moving forward. Even if the numbers aren’t comparable to what you see in other municipalities, they have the dollars that they’re throwing down to bring people in. Those sign on bonuses are very hard to compete with.

But if you consider that we’re not giving sign on bonuses, and we have our recruitment person doing this work, she’s doing clearly a great job when she’s competing with that. So the question is, how important is this to us? And for me, it is very important. And just looking towards the future and just kind of seeing the landscape and how things have been progressing, I would ask for your support for this.

This is not that much money in the grand scheme of things. And it does have a huge impact. Every single doctor that was brought on board in the last year has a ton of residents who are depending on them. And considering that we are going to have many doctors retiring soon, that number is only going to increase.

And that is kind of my fear. That is my worry. There’s too many residents. In my ward, specifically, friends of mine, family of mine, even with no family doctors.

I hear people saying, I’m not going to go to the doctor for whatever ailment that they have because they don’t have one. Or I hear parents telling me, my child looks like they have chickenpox. This is a real example. It looks like she has chickenpox.

But we don’t have a doctor. So we don’t know where to go. Do we go to a walk-in clinic, a walk-in clinic do we go to? And those are the questions that we should not really have our residents worrying about.

We should provide these services to them. That is one of the big benefits of living in Canada in this country. We have health care that is sufficient for us, for our needs. We are finding ourselves in this kind of vacuum situation.

And we are competing with other municipalities. I did hear Aurelia has its new incentive program out too. But I would point to some other ones. Dryden has a $37,500 municipal relocation grant.

How are we supposed to compete against that? Niagara has $100,000 relocation incentive. For a position, they recruited 28 doctors with that incentive program. Without— we didn’t even have an incentive program.

We recruited six. So all the numbers, no matter how low they may be comparatively speaking, count. They count for many Londoners. So I would strongly urge you to please support this motion, just to carry us forward, until we do see the responsibility of the province step in and recognize that responsibility.

Other speakers, go ahead, Councillor Pribble. Thank you. So I think we all agree that advocacy is at must. We all agree that we don’t want to go into the bidding wars with other municipalities.

Having said that, I supported last year. I supported this program. I supported $50,000, which I would have preferred if it would be in the same amount, because I don’t want it to be $80 this year, $120 next year, et cetera. But having said that, we have made other commitments to various organizations.

When we look at the research, and we look at the research, that we don’t have a family doctor, so where do people go? There’s Walking Clinic, and then there’s the emergency. And we made cases previously that because of this investment, we are going to alleviate the pressure from our emergency services. Less expensive, yes, less expensive for province.

But again, it’s all taxpayers’ money. And also, it’s less waiting time at the emergency services. I would have preferred, as I said, $50,000. But I do believe that after the one year, if I look at the number of the physicians that this organization has recorded for London, it’s beneficial.

I did talk to one family doctor who came here, to him and to his family. And he was very straightforward that he came here to London based on the recruitment efforts of these organizations. So I will— I’m struggling with the $80, because I don’t like to increase it. But I do believe in these organizations, and I believe the results that have brought in have been beneficial for our community, and had elevated pressures from other health care providers.

Thank you. Other speakers? Seeing— oh, Councillor Frank, go ahead. Thank you.

Yes, this one has been not keeping me up at night, but pondering, because I see a lot of merit on all sides of the arguments. And it’s a tough one when you agree with everything everyone is saying. The pathway forward becomes more difficult. So I do hear Councillor Pribble saying he would be OK with $50.

Based on my understanding of where this is headed, I would love to see some funding go towards this, because I do absolutely think we need to have somebody available to pick up the phone and talk to potential doctors and to spend time recruiting people and having them want to come to London. If we have absolutely no undoing that work, I don’t think we will be very successful. So I would like to put an amendment forward, changing the $80 to the $50 amount, because I think the good work can still continue to happen. I only would see this again for another year.

And hopefully, Jane Philpott will be able to make some resolutions that don’t require municipalities picking up the provinces tab. But I would like to move a motion to have it reduced to $50, in hopes that would garner more support from Councillors. Yes, there’s a reference to $80 twice, so I assume you want to change it in both spots. I mean, you can ask the county for a percentage of $80, if you want, even if the lower is $50.

But so both spots change to $50, OK. Seconder for that, Councillor Pribble’s second. OK, so we’ll go to an amendment, which is an amendment on the amount from $80 to $50. It’ll be reflected in both clauses B and C.

So I’ll start a speaker’s list on the amendment now. And you could start now, if you want, Councillor Frank, or you could wait up to you. You’re going to wait, OK. Who would like to speak to the amendment?

Go ahead, Councillor Troso. I feel like I should be going around with the— could you spare a little coin? Those nickels you’re finding in the couch. We come to $30,000.

But you know, I’ll support this amendment short. You don’t want to do 80, you’ll do 50. Yeah, sure. I’ll go to 50.

But really, $30,000? Could I just ask, I know this is coming out of a— I know this is coming out of a reserve account. It’s not coming out of levy. What’s $30,000 in terms of— what would $30,000 represent if it was levy in terms of a percentage?

But roughly, you can round it off if you like. Councillor, you know, it’s a very small amount, right? I think it’s 8 point, something million dollars is 1%. So I don’t think we need our staff to do the math.

It’s a very small fraction of that. Well, I think if you’re going to round it, it would probably come to 0 or 0, 0, 0, 0.1. Stop. OK, point of personal privilege.

Go ahead. So I need your microphone. Councillor Troso. Go ahead.

Councillor— This is just to me a little bit demeaning of staff in the conversations we’re having here, respectfully. We’re walking a fine line of asking for change of a coach cushion and that it’s really $0, which is not for 0%. Yeah, I hear you. Councillor blows on the point of personal privilege on the language being used, being unnecessary.

Councillor, I almost stepped in when you talked about you picked up your prop and asked for change, which is not something we tend to do here. I agree with the Councillor. You’ve proceeded down that route. So I would ask you to— if you’re going to support the amendment, speak to your reasons why you support the amendment.

If you don’t, speak to your reasons why you don’t. And you can keep it at a high level, that’d be great. OK, I’ll do that. And I’ll try to stay focused on why I support the amendment.

The couch analogy is not one I made up. So in any event, I’ll support the change to $50,000. And I’m sure that that means something’s going to have to be cut. I have a lot of confidence in the program staff here that they’ll be able to figure out a creative way of doing it.

Last year, they were able to make up to $30,000 elsewhere. We’ve been told explicitly that they’re not going to be able to do that. So I just hope that that can be made up someplace. Yeah, I’ll support this amendment.

And I’ll leave it at that. So thank you for the $50,000 if that’s where Council is going to go on this. Well, we still have to have a vote, Councillor. And that’s why we’re having a debate on the change of the amount.

So I’ll go to Councillor Pervell next. Thank you, and I think that there’s an opportunity for this organization to go that City match what City did last year. And there are other organizations and institutions that are going to benefit from this as well. And I think this organization now has an opportunity, let’s say, if this passes, City committed what they did last year and to go to the other organizations.

I know that it’s not going to be easy, but on the other hand, I don’t think it’s a must at this time that they have to cut their budget by $30,000. I think this is an opportunity. And that a partner came to the table with the same amount. And there’s an opportunity for this organization to go identify and potentially go to the ones that have received no to say to them City committed again the same amount, help us out with the $30.

Maybe it’s going to be not $1.30. Maybe it’s going to be $6.5 or whatever it is. I’m not saying it’s going to be easy, but I think it’s going to be a very positive way to move forward. Thank you.

OK, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. So a couple of questions through to our staff. First of all, am I correct in my recollection that last year this was flowed through just as a straight-up grant?

And that we didn’t have necessarily an agreement, like a purchase-of-service contract or anything like that in place. Was it just a grant last year? Go ahead, major microphone, thanks. Thank you through you.

That’s correct. It went as a grant. OK, so typically when we do grants, we’re not giving out grants year over year. And we have a community grants process that normally we direct grants through.

This didn’t come through that process. But we did it anyway. So through you, Chair, if this smaller amount even was funded— and I might support the smaller amount, but in principle, I’m still not going to support any amount. But I would staff and vision in flowing this.

We have some policies around our grants and people coming back asking year over year again. So how would staff actually envision even flowing this? Thank you, Your Worship. So if we were to pursue a contract this year, I would— we could envision using a similar model as we use for our funded economic development partners, such as LEDC, which— so we do have an existing structure, a mechanism, and given that this is coming from the EcDev Reserve Fund and does have an economic development angle, that would be something that we would look to.

Go ahead. No, we need your microphone back. Go ahead. And I’m just wondering, in follow up to that, all we’ve got right now is this ask from the Ontario Health team.

Has there been discussion with them about how this would even flow to them in terms of entering into an agreement with us? I’m asking— no, I’m not trying to be combative about it. But we’re right back to where we were last year. And so I’m trying to look for what the process even is here, understanding that first part of the answer.

But that’s our answer. But has there even been a discussion with them about what that would be? Go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship.

No, not at this time there hasn’t been. But we would entertain that as soon as— and if this were put forward by Council. OK, thank you. I thought that was important to bring up.

This is not something that we asked for. This was something that they came to us with. There’s a granting process that— or we’ve gone outside of here once. I just— I come back to the fundamentals of things.

And the municipal act is very vague in its areas of where municipal jurisdiction is. But the directions from the division of powers in the Constitution and the British North American Act and all of those other lovely things are actually pretty clear. The feds have to do some transfer payments through the Canada Health Act to the provinces. The provinces deliver the health care services.

So I will support the smaller amount, because if we’re going to do this, I think we should not put a large amount of municipal dollars in. But when we come back to the main motion, I’m not going to support it, because I still fundamentally believe this is the province’s job. It is not our job to be doing health care. And we was referenced that we’re sliding into this.

We’ve had downloading happening, and while I don’t disagree, voluntarily taking on more is not a good policy direction for us to be taking as a municipality, in my opinion. Other speakers? This is on the amendment to lower the amount from 80 to 50 in both locations. No other speakers, so we’ll open that for voting.

Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to 2. OK. I need a motion to extend past 6 PM.

Moved by Councilor for a seconded by Councilor Hopkins. I don’t see any discussion, so we’re going to open the vote. Councillor Troso noted. Thank you.

Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to 1. So I need a motion to move as amended. Councillor Ferri, you’re willing to move as amended.

Seconded by Councillor Frank. OK. Discussion on the as amended motion, which is same motion, with a different amount now. People still want it divided?

All right. OK. So we’ll do A and the Ip being noted, and then B and C. So A is the receive.

The Ip being noted. There was a delegation and presentation. And then the other two pieces are the part that contains the actual funding. So first we’re doing A.

So I’m going to open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0. OK.

And now B and C together. This is the approve from the Act of Reserve Fund, 50K, and the request the mayor to write a letter to the county mayors to ask them to contribute part of the 50 for that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion fails 7 to 8.

Back to you, Councillor Ferri. Thank you, Chair. Next item is item 10. That’s 2.9 on the committee report.

That’s the provision of outdoor basic needs. I’ll put that on the floor. OK, that’s on the floor. I’ll look for speakers.

Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I have a quick amendment that I’d like to bring forward. It was circulated.

It’s a motion to add a new part, X, that civic administration be directed to add McCormick Park to the list of areas where encampments are not permitted, and outreach will not be provided. I believe I have a secondary and deputy mayor, Lewis. Yes, we have that, and it’ll be J. So X was just kind of a holder until we figured it out, so it’ll be at a new part, J.

With that piece, I’ll just confirm the second or yes. All right, so we can have discussion on just the amendment. So go ahead if you’d like. Yeah, I just wanted to quickly confirm with staff that the list that we had originally that had encampments were not to be and the 100 meters that the outreach would be respecting those rules.

Thank you, Your Worship, and through you. I just want to make sure I heard the question properly. outreach will be going out to the encampments. The enforcement piece is what gets enacted when we come across encampments that are with inside the proximity boundaries that Council has said.

OK, so my amendment is to add McCormick Park to that original list of ones where encampments are proactively enforced where there’s a lot of activity. So the reason that I’m bringing this one forward, there’s quite a few reasons. McCormick Park is a long, narrow park along the railway tracks just east of the Quebec overpass, just so people know where it is. It was the construction on the stormwater management ponds were just finished last year.

So we’ve got these ponds through there because it’s long and narrow it backs onto the single family homes of Canot. And then we have half a dozen three-story walkups and half a dozen apartment buildings there, all of whom rely on that park as their backyard. So there’s been a lot of issues in terms of the few encampments that we’ve got in there. It’s been causing a great deal of concern to the neighbors because it’s coming close to the yards and for the public safety around the Children’s Park and for the apartments.

It’s also right near the railroad track. So it goes very low. And then there’s a steep incline up to the railway tracks. Having the tent encampments along that stretch on the railroad tracks is a safety concern.

I know there was an outreach volunteer who fell through the ice actually through the winter because there’s water there. And I had an email back from a mom whose daughter is out in those encampments. And we often don’t agree on some of my stances, but she sent me a picture of her daughter’s tent and it being 10 inches underwater in that park along with some other people. So even she was in agreement that this wasn’t a suitable place for the tent encampments.

So I was hoping for council’s support on just adding this one to the list of 14 or 15 that we have from the beginning. Council, can you just confirm the version? I think there were two versions of the motion that you wanted up. Yeah, the one that I read out, the second one that I distributed.

Okay, can you just read it again? I just want to make sure, ‘cause I think they— Civic administration be directed to add McCormick Park to the list of areas where encampments are not permitted and outreach will not be provided. Okay, that’s the version that we have. We’ll put that one up.

I just want to make sure the right version is on this one. Okay, other speakers to the amendment, go ahead. Thank you, worship. Just want to rise and say I’m happy to support the word councilor on this.

She has shared a great deal of communication from ward residents about the challenges in this particular location. I’ve also heard it myself. We do get some overlap being neighboring wards. People email us both.

They Facebook messages both. And the reason I’m willing to second and support this is because I’m hearing a tremendous number of concerns about McCormick Park in particular and the residents immediately abutting it as neighbors. And so, while I recognize that we have challenges with limited numbers of spaces, we have to balance the need for the folks who live right there to feel safe and secure in their own homes as well. And I’ve heard from enough of them really loud and clear that they don’t, that I’m willing to support adding this location as one of those proactive enforcement zones.

Okay, other speakers to councilor Trostav. Thank you and I’d like to ask staff through the chair. Can you provide a estimate of a number as to how many encampment residents would be affected by this? Through your worship, currently in McCormick Park, there are five encampments representing eight people in one pet through the chair.

Should this motion be passed with this amendment? Where would they go to the best of your knowledge? Yeah, I mean, you can try to answer that. Mr.

Higgins, but I’m not sure you know where someone’s gonna go if that’s enforced, but if you have some guidance you can, but I’m not expecting you to know the answer to what someone else might do. Through you, your worship, the reality is, is that we would post notice if this were to pass, we would give folks a set amount of time that that park would no longer be permitted for them to be in. They would, we would work without reach workers to try and help facilitate a move to some type of indoor space. If one were available, barring any indoor space, these folks are most likely going to self-resolve and move to wherever they feel they can create safe space or a spot where they can find that they’re permitted to be in.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, don’t speculate, but to the best of your knowledge, would this have an impact on the other locations to which they would relocate? Through you, your worship, at any time when we’re in the unfortunate situation where folks need to be relocated and asked to move, it has the potential to create impacts in the surrounding area, the immediate area.

If there are no suitable green space or sheltering space, privacy space, it’s possible folks start to disperse themselves further throughout the community and it could have ripple effects in other areas and it could drive people deeper into seclusion, which makes it, of course, more difficult for us to find and support and help create those connections. Thank you, thank you very much. Other speakers? Yep, go ahead, Councillor Frank.

Thank you, and sorry if I missed it. I’m just wondering through the chair to staff, is this where they are located currently in McCormick Park? Is it within the all the setback requirements that we have that we enforce? Or is it outside of those setback requirements if you know what I’m trying to say?

Thank you for the question and through you, Your Worship. I’m joined by Ms. Kramer’s on Zoom, who oversees the coordinated form response team. Her team of MLEOs and then joined to collaborate with the outreach workers, but no more precisely where these encampments are located.

Noting that our team every day if we come across encampments that are inside those boundaries, they are asked to move back, but I will go to Ms. Kramer’s to respond. Go ahead. Go ahead through you, Your Worship.

We do have a spread throughout McCormick Park. There is a sewer, water management area that they are avoiding because of water. So they’re spread around that. The good majority of them are located down near the apartments.

So they are outside of that restriction. I have not had a complaint or measured the one encampment that is down by the cannot end. Certainly can do that, but cannot speak to it specifically as that’s a new encampment there this week. Good, okay.

Councillor McAllister. Thank you and through the mayor. I struggle with these one-offs just because I understand in terms of where the council is coming from, you get a number of complaints. But if I was to solely base locations off of complaints, I wouldn’t have any because pretty much everyone has an issue.

My ward is in a situation where I have a long stretch of the river. Residents might not necessarily surround those areas, but they’re public parks that people can no longer use. So I think we’re getting to a point where we start doing these cherry picks because part of this is we have to use data at some point and we’re constantly at odds with that. So my issue with this is we’re gonna get to a point where I feel like essentially the only area you’ll allow will be down by the river, which is still floodplain.

And then even then, you’re essentially going to say to residents in the wards that are impacted while you don’t live directly on that property. So that doesn’t be threshold, right? I just think we’re getting to a point where we just don’t have good criteria. So I understand where you’re coming from.

I just think, again, you’re gonna get to a situation where you have nothing left just by the fact that it’s being complaint driven and not by where people are. Any other speakers? This is on the amendment to add Ormaq Park and the directions associated with it. It should be an e-scribe, I’m gonna open that for voting.

Closing the vote motion carries 10 to five. Okay, I need a mover for the as amended motion. Councilor Ferri is still willing to move the as amended motion. Okay, this includes everything with that piece.

So you don’t wanna move it. I guess, splitting the vote is not an option. No, we just had the vote. All right, fine.

I will move the as amended motion. Okay, as amended. I need a seconder for the as amended motion. It’s okay, any discussion on the as amended motion?

Okay, yeah, go ahead, Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, I’ll keep it quick. And I do appreciate my colleagues’ support on that. Unfortunately, I’m still not supporting the main motion because I have been consistent in voting against this outreach and encampment support.

Unfortunately, what happens is after spending $1.2 million and helping people live in the parks, at the end of the year, the people living in the parks are still angry that they don’t have any place to go and we’ve got neighbors and neighborhoods angry as well. So I really want, what I would prefer is to put our money towards the overnight spaces, ideally 24/7, but at least overnight spaces. A lot of the funding that’s coming here is not that, which means at the end of the year, we haven’t made the difference that I think that we could in this city. Other speakers?

Okay, we’re gonna open the as amended motion for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to 2. Okay, go ahead, Councilor Ferra. Chair, next item is 11, it’s 2-10 on the committee report that’s the emergency treatment fund ETF approval of federal contribution agreement as it relates to bill number 105.

I’ll put that on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor. I’ll look for speakers. Okay, go ahead, Councilor Stevenson.

Thank you. Question through you to staff regarding is there any time or would a referral be beneficial at all to explore possibly changing the project that is before us? Are there any opportunities for that? Go ahead.

Through your worship, the services that are identified in this ETF are the services that were in the previous report that Council just passed, the vast majority. So that this ETF funding is the source to support those outreach services that Council just endorsed. If there was gonna be significant change, we would have to revisit our ability to deliver those services as well as it would cause a significant constraint on our requirement to submit an investment plan to the federal government by the end of April. And Councilor Stevenson.

Okay, so there’s a couple of things for me at least in this, it talks a lot about bringing harm reduction supplies. And as was confirmed with staff at the committee, that is bringing needles, hookers, pipes, straws, foil, it’s educating drug users on how to do it more safely, you know, snorting versus injecting, inhaling, all these kinds of things. This is, it’s concerning to Londoners. And I just can’t support a focus on this.

So we’re talking about, we just approved 1.2 million. This is 1.4 million. So now we’re 2.6 million in helping people live in our parks and helping them to do drugs safely. And it just is not what I hear that Londoners want.

Either housed or unhoused. I feel like people are expecting more from the city they want indoor, space, overnight beds. And I’m really concerned about where we’re gonna be at the end of this. We’ve got cities around us who are moving away from encampments.

So in Hamilton, in Windsor, and we are investing heavily in supporting people in living outside. And I just don’t know where that’s gonna take us. One of this funding here ends at the end of December. So we’re hiring people, we’re buying a vehicle, we’re renting space, $20,000 on iPads and equipment to ramp up something that’s going to stop at the end of December.

Or is it, or are we gonna continue this and then fund it through the winter? So people have a lot of questions. I’ve been posting on Facebook so that people really understand what these harm addiction kits look like. They are available at the consumption site.

They’re available at the health unit. We already have agencies handing them out. This is a massive influx in spending, specifically directed to supplying drug supplies at our parks. Councillor Frank.

Thank you. And I have a question to staff through the chair. I’m also curious to know what else is being handed out, or is it simply a safer consumption kits? Go ahead, Mr.

Dickon. Through you, your worship, this is the provision of basic needs to people that are living outdoors. So it covers a wide range of food, water, donated items, socks, clothing, garbage bags, we do garbage collection. It’s the provision of basic needs for individuals that are actively dealing with an addiction that would require or seek out the use of a harm reduction kit, one would be provided if they were to require one.

And the reason that the community of London does that, and they are distributed in a number of different areas, is that it helps on a public health perspective to try to reduce or limit the spread of communicable diseases throughout our community. Harm reduction kits that are provided are also a part of the system through the REACH channels are also collected to ensure that we are not providing needles to parks. We’re actually providing life sustaining measures to individuals. Thank you.

So I will be supporting this because I see that it goes beyond harm reduction kits. I also see the value in harm reduction kits. Of course, it comes with trade offs as we have heard from our residents, but I do think again, it’s important that we keep people alive until they can come inside and we can’t spend, try to find the exact number on here, but slightly over a million dollars won’t bring very many people inside. Unfortunately, as we’ve heard, if this money could be just reallocated to bring people immediately inside, I think we all would be jumping for joy and vote for that, but unfortunately it doesn’t.

So as always, I will try to keep people alive until we can bring them inside. Other speakers, go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. So I’m wondering if through you, I can ask, Mr.

Dickens indicated that this item is related to the previous item. And there’s been a lot of back and forth on this. There was a lot of discussion at committee. I had to leave before the discussion was done there.

I’m wondering if Mr. Dickens can give us a quick overview of how item 10, the provision of outdoor basic needs and how the provision of this emergency treatment fund interrelate and overlap. Is it a 1.2 plus a 1.4? Are there interrelated funding pieces here?

Can we just get a quick explanation of how these two components on the agenda are tied together, please? Go ahead, Mr. Cooper. Thank you and through your worship, the emergency treatment fund and the funding that we’re looking for that 1.4 was actually spread over two fiscal years.

So about 350-ish thousand in 2425. And then what this report’s requesting is moving forward from May to the end of December in 2025. So that is just over a million dollars. So as part of that million dollars, there’s provision of about up to 78 meals per day at a $313,000 amount.

There is water provision to four skids per month at around $15,000 total as well as a provision of portable washrooms at about a $22,000 total and then the outreach for 5.09 pursuit in London care. So it’s right around that million dollars and other aspects of the funding also include program review and as well as some civic administration costs. Thank you. I know this has been, again, I know this has been put together in pieces.

I know you’ve had to go back, rework things. So I guess I’m gonna share some thoughts now and try and figure out where I’m gonna be on this because quite honestly, I continue to struggle. And I recognize that the federal government has attached strengths to this and that components have to be there. And I’m gonna say I’m not very happy about that, that we’re being required to potentially incorporate some things that we may or may not want to do in order to achieve some other things that we do want to do.

And I share the serious concerns about the harm reduction program and the safe supply program that’s been expressed. I remember when we had a needle exchange program that became a needle giveaway program and now it’s become a delivering to folks living in encampments program. And what I’ve seen the fallout of is the debris from those harm reduction kits increasingly, showing up in our parks and our playgrounds in people’s backyards and that is not acceptable. And I understand residents frustration with that.

I mean, yeah, we’re being told that, and I wanna confirm this is correct. So three to staff. The federal government is actually requiring part of this, believe it’s, I’m not even gonna try and look up the number right now. The federal government is requiring harm reduction to be a part of this approach right now.

Am I correct in that? Go ahead Mr. Dickens. Three year worship, yes.

This is the substance use and addictions program emergency treatment funded focuses on a harm reduction approach for individuals specifically living in encampments. Yeah, so that’s really frustrating for me because quite honestly, that’s the piece that I really am not excited about pursuing. I think when we’re handing out clean needles and pipes and things to say here’s how you do drugs safely and then naloxone kits at the same time. So here’s how you can revive somebody with an overdose.

Like we’re left hand and right hand are not connecting here properly ‘cause there’s no real safe measure here. There’s just a, I guess, slightly safer measure, but I listen to folks as well, like Dr. Sharon Koivu who was on the Craig Needles podcast talking about harm reduction and safe supply and why she no longer supports it because it’s gone from being a measure that was brought in place to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, in particular HIV, now to becoming something that a number of health professionals, and there’s disagreement, but a number of them who were supporters early on are now seeing as an enabling of addiction. And so it concerns me that this is a requirement from the federal government.

We hear from folks who are looking for affordable housing or even shelter space about how they wanna dry environment and how we’re not creating that for them and their objections there. And so this is an awkward and tough vote for me because I don’t support enabling addiction behavior to continue, but at the same time, I don’t know what other options we have and we’ve got a federal government that says we have to have a plan to them by the end of the month. They’ve put in these requirements and really it feels like our only option at the end of the day is to send the money back if we don’t wanna meet all these requirements. And I don’t like that kind of strong arming, I guess, from the federal government in terms of these conditions on the money.

And I say that with appreciation for the fact that at least they heard municipalities asking for some support and help, but they’ve really tied our hands in terms of how we can do that. And so I don’t know, I have read and reread and reread these reports over the last three, four days. And I don’t love it, but I don’t know, in fact, I don’t like it. I’d like to say no, but I also don’t wanna return money to the federal government that we can use to help get basic supports out to people.

So I’m gonna listen to what my colleagues have to say, but wherever I land on this and if this passes or not, I’m, we’re in the middle of a federal election, a new government of some sort is coming in, whatever that looks like. I’ll tell you, I’m gonna be advocating with our local MPs to stop doing this to us and to give us funding that we can implement things in the way that we feel is effective for the community. If this is supported, I really gotta underscore it for me. This is a prime crunch.

30 seconds. So if this is passed, I wanna say in the future, I will not be looking to support any more approaches that are enabling addiction lifestyles is how I’m taking it. So we’re kind of at the end for me. I’m gonna listen to what other folks have to say.

All right, I got Councillor Lehman and then myself. Yeah, thank you. I think I share similar concerns. I know most of us is probably I’ve thought a lot about this over the past week, knowing that we come here to address that today, for sure, support basic needs, providing that who doesn’t, but where I have trouble reconciling with this particular decision.

And I think I’ve come around, I used to kind of agree with the harm reduction strategy or philosophy. But just my experience has been that I don’t, I think that’s the wrong name, ‘cause I don’t see how it’s preventing harm. I cannot get past the idea of the city providing equipment that would allow for the consumption of toxic lethal narcotics. I don’t know how I would feel knowing that that led to an overdose death.

I understand the argument about a communicable diseases and prevention of, but I weigh the both. And I’ve come, you know, I thought it was a lot. I’ve come to this decision, I cannot support the one that is so dangerous. Fentanyl is being consumed out there in unknown quality, unknown amounts, it’s laced with bad stuff.

We have to, of course we have to provide ways for folks to get treatment for addiction. This is not the way it’s, the oxymoron is, for me, as it was mentioned by the deputy mayors, we’re passing out needles and pipes, et cetera, to use the lethal narcotics, but at the same time, we’re passing out bloxone to keep people alive from the use of those narcotics. I just cannot put those two together. So if there is a way to, you know, to continue with basic outdoor needs, I would be supportive of that, but I do not see including drug kits as a basic outdoor need.

I just cannot get around it, so I will not support this. Turn it over to Deputy Mayor Lewis. I will take the chair and recognize Mayor Morgan. So I appreciate the comments from my colleagues so far.

I’ll say this, there are strings attached to all sorts of funding that we go out and ask for. On the infrastructure side of things, sometimes we reprioritize projects because we’ve got time frames that we have to put in. It’s not always the highest priority thing. This is the way that governments flow money.

And I agree with what the deputy mayor said. We advocate all the time to say, give us the money and let us decide how to do it, ‘cause, you know, we’re local and we know best. As part of the whole, let’s redo the funding framework argument that we’re talking about. We have limited revenue tools.

It doesn’t work. We’re dependent upon this. So here’s what’s happened through council. We don’t want to put more municipal dollars into these services that aren’t municipal.

So you might not like every component of this. The federal government is giving us dollars on things that we were spending municipal dollars with before. So for me, it’s pretty hard to say no to that because it’s exactly what we were advocating for. Again, I recognize not everybody’s going to like every component of the program that we have to box ourselves into in the application.

But I want to thank our staff for being able to put an application in that meets the federal requirements and actually gets us significant amount of money to provide services that we were providing before with municipal dollars or would have significant pressure to provide with municipal dollars. So most of what’s happening with this money is the basic needs support. The stuff that we were saying go out and find a way for another level of government to fund what we think they should be funding because it shouldn’t be a municipal problem. It shouldn’t be on the property tax base.

So again, I recognize that some colleagues have significant issues with a portion of this funding but it is going to be hard for me to go out and advocate for more funding for other things we need in this space. If when they finally give us some money, we say there’s this piece of this we don’t like so just keep it all. That’s going to be difficult spot to be in. So I would encourage people, even if you don’t like every aspect of this, let’s take the dollars that we’re applied for, that we’re advocated for, that we won and got into this community and we can supply and fund the plan that we just passed with these dollars instead of voting this down and then having a conversation about how much municipal dollars we’re going to put in to fund the plan we just passed.

So again, I recognize the difficulty some members of council have with supporting the whole package. That happens on a lot of votes and on this one, significant amount of money for doing something that we’d otherwise have pressure to do ourselves. So I’d encourage you to support the motion. Thank you, Mayor Morgan.

I will return the chair to you noting Councilor Pribble is next on the speaker’s list. Go ahead, Councilor Pribble. Thank you. I would like to thank the staff for securing this amount from the higher levels of government.

I think it’s a great work in terms of getting money down to our municipal level. Having said that, I do have huge issues with this one and as some of you know, I go to the encampments on a regular basis and last two weeks since this I’ve been there even more often to provide these services in such an uncontrolled environment is from my personal experience tremendously, tremendously dangerous. For the individuals who are there, who did, for the individuals who will be providing these services and for even the people who are just walking by or are in the area. And I hate to turn even a dollar away, I do, but based on what we see here and as we said, there are certain portions we like, certain we don’t like.

I will, I hope that this potential referral or something can be redone so we don’t have to give this back or full amount back. Again, if I look at the background, there’s the second paragraph that’s kind of more open and the third one states specifically encampments. I know if there’s anything that can be done, but honestly, if this is based on my own experience, if this way would stay, I would rather decline it because in that uncontrolled environment, it’s very dangerous and potentially, instead of us saving lives, it could cause lives. Thank you.

Go ahead, Councillor ramen. Thank you. Looking at the contract itself, I’m just wondering where it actually outlines in the contract, the key activities and deliverable outputs is the contract amenable. I’ll just give them a sec to determine who’s gonna answer.

Just to clarify through you, worship, are we talking appendix A? Yes. Thank you, your worship for that time. Through you, what’s being referenced here is what forms the contribution agreement.

So, no, that would not be amenable. We would have to go back and try to attempt to amend the contribution agreement with the federal government. So, no, this is the key activities that we have submitted, which form the contribution agreement with the federal government is what they agreed to fund this based on is the provision of toilets, water, food, and outreach services. Thank you.

And let’s say we were not able to meet one particular bullet outlined in that contract. What’s the penalty? Through you, your worship. We would be expected to meet the expectations of this agreement.

If there’s a bullet that we missed on, I’m not sure there would be some flexibility. In the agreement itself, as Ms. Polit has pointed out, there is a default clause, which would be triggered if we were violating the terms of the agreement and that money may be clogged back. Thank you.

I know this is new funding that was applied for and that there was one, the issue of the title in terms of the emergency funding mechanism. But when I read through our submission, our submission was quite clear that we were looking at transactional outreach to encampments. And then when it looks at the service and support, I mean, for me, I can get behind the fact that people that have needs for having an addiction issue may need education, overdose prevention support, access to overdose reversal medications, overdose dose response. I think where I’m hearing there’s some concern is around the access to harm reduction supplies and equipment, which makes up one bullet in the entire submission.

Let’s say we were talking about just on the provision of basic needs. I mean, we know that we have a lot of need in our community for food, water, bathroom, shelter, et cetera. I’m just wondering why would we suspect that the government would push back if we were to find those needs more crucial at this time? If you’d like, I can rephrase.

I know, sometimes I talk in a convoluted way. So for instance, if we said we have more meals to provide or we have more supports needed elsewhere, our bathrooms need to go to more locations, et cetera, if we, in a way, had used the money differently, why do we suspect that we would then potentially face some sort of a breach on the contract? I personally think that we’ve outlined a number of things that we could do, but that doesn’t actually define where those resources go. So I believe we have a little bit of flexibility.

This money is, it’s not an amount to sneeze at, it’s money that we need in our community. How we use it though, I think, is decided more here. And so I think that if it requires a direction, I’m wondering from a timing perspective, if we’re better to refer so we can come back with a direction or if, but I do know there’s a timing issue here. So I’m trying to be respectful of that.

Or is it just staff can hear what we’re saying and decide how to allocate those bullets? Through you, your worship, thank you for the question. I know Ms. Paul, it may want to weigh in as well.

It’s ultimately going to be the federal government’s interpretation of whether we’ve defaulted on the agreement more so than our interpretation of which bullets get more emphasized versus others. We included the reference to harm reduction or overdose reversing or lifesaving supports because that was the scope of the federal funding. When we left with previous council direction, it was staff were to go and seek out federal funding for the provision of basic needs or transactional outreach and then we scrubbed transactional outreach and we focus on basic needs. There’s not copious amounts of federal funding out there for us to be able to achieve that goal where we found opportunity was through this fund.

The inclusion of harm reduction is relevant because it fits the funding scope but it’s also something that takes place in our community already. Whether we were participating in it or not, it happens. The bulk of our ask is like you, as you mentioned in this agreement is around the provision of basic needs, food, water, toilets and outreach services. Should we decide to deviate or create our own flexibility, we may come to agreement on that.

But ultimately it’s the funders discretion on whether they feel that we’ve appeased their requirements of this funding or not. Is that good? Okay, thank you. Thank you, much appreciated for the answer and for the thought that went into that.

For me, what I see is I see we are, if we were to let’s say deliver on four out of five of those bullets, 80% is pretty good in terms of delivering on what we agreed to in terms of harm reduction. We’re providing, if we provided everything, but the supplies that people may have concerns with without having to amend an agreement without having to amend a motion at this point, understanding that council is saying, look, we’ve heard enough from the community on this in terms of direction. This is a funding that we have even in the title identified is transactional outreach to encampments. So I again go back to the main component of this is basic needs.

And so I don’t wanna get lost in while we’re now saying it’s more from a harm reduction perspective. For the five, those bullets are not handing out harm reduction materials. So I do think we are still meeting our obligation if we were to do more of that. And that’s just my personal opinion.

And I just wanted to put that out there because I think we have an opportunity here. We’ve been talking about funding. We’ve been talking about driving investment, our community. We have to find ways to do that within the parameters of the funding agreements, the parameters of funding available.

I think our staff tried to do that. I see the effort. Look, you look at the background, it answers the questions for us as to why this request went forward from staff. I have council for our next.

As long as it is a point of privilege. Yeah, I’m freezing. At six o’clock the heat went off it. Could the heat go back one?

Okay, temperature and comfort is a point of privilege. I can’t, let me see what I can do with that, okay? Thanks for letting me know. Let me go to council for air.

Well, I’m figuring that out. Thanks, Mayor. Actually, councilor ramen took most of my questions. So I don’t have anything to add to that.

We’re gonna take a break a few minutes. I will get you hot tea to hold onto it in the meantime. But let’s proceed with this item first. Councilor Farrah doesn’t need to speak.

Councilor Trossa, you had your point. Anybody else on what’s before us? Okay, so what we have is the report from the committee on the floor. I’m gonna open that for voting.

Councilor Lewis, thank you. Closing the vote, motion carries nine to five. I think the items in your report, Councilor Farrah still have bait components with them. I got a number of people who just need wash and break and stuff.

So I’m gonna see if people can take a 10 minute break. You’ll move that. Okay, seconded by Councillor Hopkins with this by hand. All those in favor of 10 minutes, opposed?

Motion carries. Okay, 10 minutes. Thanks, please be seated. Go back to Councilor Farrah.

Bear with me for a second, Mayor, sorry. All right, we have concluded item 11. So we are on the last fold item. That’s item 12, 2.11 for the committee report.

And that is for the additional emergency shelter and drop in space update report. I’ll put that on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor. I’ll look for any discussion.

You guys, Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you. I’d like to make an amendment. The funding for arcade did not come forward because it failed at committee.

So I’d like to bring forward the following amendment. T, a single, do you want me to read the whole thing? Yes, I don’t think the public wasn’t on the agenda. So the public should hear it, yeah.

Okay, a single source procurement be approved at a total estimated cost of up to $610,577, excluding HST for the period of April 1st, 2025 to March 31st, 2026 for the arcade street mission day drop in SS 2025-66 to provide day drop in space at a location other than a main street of a BIA, utilizing housing stability services funding as per the corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy section 14.4, D and E to the following provider. Want me to read this part out as well? Why the civic administration be authorized to undertake all administrative acts, which are necessary in relation to this project and to that the approval given herein be conditional upon the corporation of the City of London, entering into new and or amending existing previous, or sorry, purchase of service agreements with agencies identified through the city’s procurement of goods and services policy to deliver the approved services. There’s a seconder for that.

And then what we’ll do is get it on the screen so people can read all that. Councillor Hilliard’s willing to second. Okay, put it on the screen and then people can review. I’ll let you, this is an amendment.

So we’ll have debate on the amendment. Would you like to start? Okay, so come on herself on the list when she’s ready. Then I’ll look for others on the amendment.

And I might just give just a little bit of time for people to read it ‘cause that was long. And also, there’s a couple of our staff who are probably relevant to this who aren’t quite back yet. I started without them. So I’ll just let colleagues a minute just to read the, read the, and I’ll just look for people on a speaker’s list when you’re ready.

Any speakers to this? So I started with everyone. So we’re on an amendment related to stuff that is in your service area. Sorry about that.

Got excited about moving along. Councillor McAllister, you can go ahead. Thank you and through the mayor. So I just want to double check.

So staff who are related to this file are back in the room? Yes, they are. Okay, perfect. So for you, I guess my first question would be to staff.

‘Cause I mean, we’ve put out a piece in the past in terms of trying to get service providers to do this work. This would be a new tender, essentially. Could staff comment on the likelihood of them even being able to find something? And then this isn’t speculative.

This is based on, you know, previous tenders that they’ve done on the service. So I’m just curious in terms of how this process would look fold and if we could even see something come forward. So if you got, if our staff can read the amendment that’s on the floor, which is at the worst of all, we’re on, Councillor’s question is, first off, Councillor, it’s a single source procurement. So I think your question is about, you think that’ll, the likely, I mean, maybe I need you to just reiterate your question.

I haven’t used any of your time yet. It’s a single source procurement. So it’s not putting out a bid. It’s basically granting this to a specific agency with a condition on the drop-in space restriction.

So what is it that you wanna ask related to that? Well, I mean, I guess based on the practice then of ‘cause it’s a single source for what we’ve heard from the agencies, essentially they own the building. So would we not then have to increase in terms of what would be providing cost-wise? Because presumably if we’re asking them to relocate, we would have to then pay rent on top of what we were asking for for service.

Go ahead, Mr. Cooper. Thank you and through your worship. There’s the clause to noting that approval be given conditional.

That would allow civic administration to work through all of those items that you’ve just identified. If the provider is unable to provide those services within the approved amount, then we would not be able to enter into a contract and we would bring that back to council for consideration. Councillor McAllister. Yep, thank you through the merit.

So sorry, just cut out a little bit there for me, but you were saying if they could not provide based on the number in this motion, then he would come back to us. But if they couldn’t do it, then nothing would happen. Essentially is what Mr. Cooper just said.

Said he would come back to council for further direction. That direction might include it could be done with less spaces. It could be done for more cost. I don’t know what it would come back with.

It would be subject to what the restrictions were on trying to meet the parameter within the contract. Okay, so I’ll just, I don’t have any more questions, but I just want to speak on this in terms of my commentary. So the issue I have with this is it’s putting the card before the horse. I don’t dispute in terms of the oversaturation in OAV.

That’s the reality, no one’s disputing that. But where my issue is, is by essentially going out, it’s still single source, I get that, but we would have nothing. Essentially, the funding runs out today. I think, to be honest with you, I find it a bit reckless and inhumane because essentially you’re stopping the service.

There’s no alternative location. We don’t have anything else in place. To me, the appropriate way of dealing with this is, if you didn’t want it there, that we would have had to have had an alternative location. I don’t think that it’s fair to constantly say to the agency, like we don’t like what’s going on.

Unfortunately, I have service providers as well. They do their best in terms of what they can in terms of the area. With the coffee house, they’ve worked with the Ark in the past. They’re providing morning services.

I guess it’s a bit different, but it’s not the same. I think it’s very difficult. I get it. And I understand where the Council is coming from.

I’m sure she’ll speak to this more. Closing down a service with no fallback, I think, is very dangerous. I think work can be done with the agency, with staff. But cutting off something, it’s nothing to replace it.

I think it’s going to create more problems than solving it. I think it’s going to probably damage the neighborhood even more. You don’t close the service and then magically all of this disappears. We all want more services to be able to help people, whether that’s supportive housing, affordable housing.

But when you don’t have it and you’re cutting off basic needs, I think the problems will just get worse. That’s all I have to say. I’ll go to Councilor Ferra next. Thank you, Mayor, through you.

I’m much of the position of Councilor McAllister of what he’s just said. I just want to see maybe some refined some things here. I do see in the report, this funding is flowing through the Housing Stability Services funding stream. And that is also supported by upper levels of governmental funding.

I wanted to know if you could just break down that funding exactly. Just what I’m interested is of where those funding streams are coming from exactly. Go ahead. Thank you and through your worship.

For this report, the funding streams would be our agreement with the federal government under unsheltered homeless encampment initiative, as well as portions of our incremental increase from our reaching home agreement with the federal government. And then there’s a municipal commitment, which was the reimbursement from our investment in affordable housing, or the IHAP program with IRCC. Thank you, Mayor. And through you, are there any timelines or deadlines that we need to have or that we have been told by our upper levels of government on where we place these funds?

Do we have any time constrictions on that? Yes, thank you and through your worship. All funds must be expensed by March 31, 2026. Thank you.

And with, I guess, any plans or procurements that we’re going to be using those funding. What type of runway do we have if we were to— and this is aside from the gaps and services, which I’ll go to in a second. But what type of runway do we have until we have to submit an agreement or submit to the upper levels of government what we’re going to do with those funding? How much time do we have for that?

Go ahead. Thank you and through your worship. We submit an yearly annual investment plan to the federal government. We’ve already submitted a community encampment response plan for our unsheltered homeless encampment initiative funding.

The reaching home incremental funding, the investment plan is usually due end of April, early May, depending on what the election may change. We then report quarterly to that organization about our actuals, how much we spent, and what we’re forecasting to spend for the rest of the year. So there’s conversations with the federal government if we’re comfortable to be able to spend those dollars— of those dollars, cover a lot of programs when we look at the broader reaching home program. But it’s through that continual conversation with the federal government.

We would determine whether or not we’re able to fulfill those commitments. And we typically don’t get any flexibility from the May 31st date. So we do work to expense all those dollars in accordance with their deadline. Go ahead, Councillor.

Thank you. So if we were to look for a motion— if we were to move with a motion like this, are we at risk of potentially losing that funding, considering how long it may take to identify a new location for the ARC? And like I said, this is the services, the gap, and services aside. But would we be at risk, a potential risk, to lose that funding?

Thank you, through your worship. Speculating, there’s always a risk, right, of something happening in community or one of our funders not being able to meet their commitments. That’s the flexibility that our teams have when we work with our reaching home government, as well as some of the municipal dollars that we already spend on other programs. They’re usually— we’re usually able to shift those dollars to cover off municipal expenses.

So when we talk in previous reports about trying to efficiently utilize our federal and provincial dollars first before we use municipal dollars, if there were any shortfalls, we would look to use through the municipal— cover off municipal costs with those appropriate federal dollars. Thank you, Mayor. OK, so I guess my next question would be, how— I know the ARC has been looking for a new location for a while, because this discussion’s been going on for a while. Is it true that the ARC has been looking for months or perhaps a year or more that you know of?

And I just wanted to know, what would be, I guess, the constraints? Or realistically, how long would it take to find a new location for the ARC, if you happen to know Mr. Dickens? Thank you, Your Worship.

It is our understanding, yes, that the ARC has been looking for quite some time, the better part of the year. They were looking for alternate space when the 30 beds were no longer going to be acceptable on Aldi’s Village BIA Main Street, and they started that search. They’ve been relatively unsuccessful in bringing forward properties that would work. We know they’ve been looking at additional spaces.

How long it will take them to find space? I’m not sure, but they’d be looking for space that could open quickly. So if you need to find a location, it’s suitable for people to be inside, receiving those services. Hopefully would not require any capital investments, because we don’t have that forecasted in any of our budgets.

And it would want to be something that they can shift their resources, or spread their resources out from where they’re currently located, to where this alternate location might be. It would probably take some time in the logically thinking, yes. Thank you, Mayor. So yes, I do know that the ARC has been looking for space for a while to see if we can just work with council from some of council’s directions.

I am with Councilor McAllister on the issue of the gap that we’ll see in the services that are going to be provided here. This gap will have immediate impacts of the residents of Ward 4 and residents of my ward first initially. And then we don’t know where the impacts will go from there. But the big issue here is that gap in service.

I would also point out that the ARC is one of the primary referral points for all EMS services, for London Police, for the ambulance services, for residents in the whole city. It’s been a historical and stable area that people can be referred to. And because of that, it is one of the pillars of our systematic homelessness response system. I have extreme fears that if we were to not provide funding and make a motion that the ARC has to look for a new place, you will have that gap in services immediately felt by the residents and by BIAs and everybody in the area, especially the people who are using these services.

You will have, most likely, the ARC will not be able to find a new location within the time that they would require one, especially the complexities of something like this. You know, like people take a while to find apartments or buy houses. This is something that’s way more complex. So that would require a significant amount of runway time.

The money that we’re getting in from our federal, upper levels of government, our federal levels of government that are providing this money, I hear all the time that we need extra governmental support to help us when it comes to this. We are very constrained on our revenue generating capacity and we’re always asking for this type of cash, these dollars, to put towards this type of, these types of agencies, I would be very unwilling to potentially forego that money and I’d be even more concerned if we were to lose the agency altogether because this might be a pivotal blow if we do that. If not, they will be operating at a very low level of service, very light version of service and you’ll still see the impacts. So with that, I can’t support this motion the way it is.

I understand that the Councillor’s intention is to have a business improvement area be operated in a way that’s according to a business improvement area, but at the same time, reasonably thinking, we need to ensure that we don’t have that gap. 30 seconds. We need to ensure that we provide the proper runway and we need to ensure that the impacts on our homelessness response are not pitifully cut by the niece in this situation. So I’m not going to be supporting the motion as it is.

There are other speakers. I’d Councillor Peruzza. We all know Arcade does a great job. We all know Arcade last winter, saved us with Bishop Cronin, with the church that provided 50 plus beds and really did decrease in both downtown and old East Village was much better in terms of people had actually roof over their heads.

Having said that, this is like a deja vu. Deja vu in terms of we also know that the businesses are struggling there. We keep talking about it and it keeps coming back and we keep addressing it all the time. I hate not to support Arcade.

I hate not to support this because I know to the people that will take advantage of it. It’s not like we are going to prove it and people are not going to take advantage of the day use. They will, but we are here again and this is a thing that we need to figure out as people behind here, people across from us, and Arcade. It’s kind of a great triangle and the bottom line is the family of lenders, they don’t care who is going to take it on.

They just want the results. And this is my issue with this that, again, if we approve this, if I go for this, then the use people will take advantage of it, but again, we are just buying time instead of addressing the issue that we need to address. And to work together somehow with Arcade, some of all of us this, to find a different location. There will never be a perfect location for them.

There will not be, but we all agreed actually a few months ago that we don’t want them on the business district. We are not going to find, we are not going to look for them for a location on Dundas Place. No, we won’t. There will not be a perfect location for them, but we need to address this.

And this is my issue. If I would love them to offer this service, I know people will take advantage of it, but I’m afraid that, again, if I do this, then again, April 1, potentially, back on our history, April 1 will be standing here looking at the money and, again, talking about, we find that we got to find a new place for them. And this is my issue. And I will, even though I hate to do it, I will support this motion.

And I hope we come very quickly, somehow together, and identify space, either private or something that we can do as a city owned property to these services to be provided. But I just don’t like to do it, but again, it’s like a deja vu, and I will be supporting this motion. But again, it’s not that RK doesn’t do it. They do an awesome job.

They saved us many times. But we got to look at, we got to try to resolve it in the best interest of all interested parties. Thank you. Okay, other speakers.

Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. So to say, you know, I agree with the fact that it feels like deja vu. Here we are again.

On the other hand, I also have to be really clear, especially with what I just heard from Councilor Pribble. I don’t know where people think, and I’m not, I’m saying this because you referenced it, but I’m not saying that I’m attributing this to you, Councilor Pribble. I just want to be clear. I don’t know where this perception is coming from in the community that the city has vacant facilities available for the provision of services.

Our facilities are in use. We have facilities that struggle even to have storage for things. We have to move things around from time to time to utilize the facilities. We have be those community center spaces, be those spaces that are our field houses, even in our parks that are full.

We just don’t have an inventory of municipal buildings sitting around that we can open up for another agency to use. And yes, you know, the community says all the time, oh, what about this vacant building? What about that vacant building? Those vacant buildings have owners, folks.

They’re not ours to take to give to another organization. And I really think it’s doing a disservice to the community to continue to say that somehow we’re going to find a magic location because I don’t think that there is one. But at the same time, I also hear and see, I drove through there on my way to City Hall yesterday, I see the pressures and the frustration that the residents of Old East Village are feeling at the same time. I will say I think that Arcade has done their very best to be a better neighbor than some of the other social services that have been located in the area over the years.

I also will say I have some concerns about what might be some, what I’m going to call, guerrilla operations of others who think they’re helping that are not Arcade, but they’re on that street handing out food, handing out other things and attracting more problems that may feel like it’s because Arcade is there. But in fact, it’s because other folks, sanctioned or non-sanctioned, maybe undertaking activities there, and we have to start really discouraging that because it’s not fair to the neighborhood for them to go and do that a block away or across the street from Arcade, whatever that might be. So, but I feel like what we’re doing with this motion, and I say this with all due respect to the Council, because I know where she’s coming from, which is a passion about her ward in this district, but I feel like we might be creating some false hope here, because what is the other location? And I don’t know what that is.

Now, I do know that there are other day drop-in spaces at London Cares on Queens, so it’s not the only space that’s offering day drop-in spaces, but I, and I could be wrong, but so I’m going to ask through the chair, if our staff can confirm whether the London Cares operation is operating seven days a week, or whether they’re operating five days a week. Go ahead. Thank you, and through your worship, they operate five days a week, Monday to Friday. Okay, so I recognize there’s a gap on the weekends, if the ARC isn’t providing their service, and I do understand that there needs to be a seven day a week sort of approach to this problem, it doesn’t take the weekends off.

So, I’m struggling with this one in that, I think we’re setting up actually a lose-lose scenario, where we’re not going to find another location right away. Services are going to end. Folks have already spoken to that piece, so I struggle with this one. As I said, I understand where the Council is coming from, 30 seconds.

I’ve driven through her ward. I also recognize that, and through you, I’m going to take the opportunity to ask one more question. There was a discussion of what the main streets of BIA, from a staff perspective. I’ve heard from Arcade’s perspective, but from a staff perspective, what is the difference between day drop-ins and day resting spaces?

Okay, I’ll give you a second, then whoever wants to answer can give it a try. Through you, your worship, day drop-in spaces are more of a structured service, where individuals experiencing homelessness can access a variety of support services during those daytime hours. Typically offers a range of resources like meals, access to hygiene facilities, so showers, washrooms, laundry services are available at the ARC, access to social workers, income support workers, or even access to other programs that may come in and provide services in that space. They’re designed to give people more of a chance to address the immediate needs that they’re facing, and then connect them to longer-term services, such as assistance with housing searches or housing finding, medical care, or some other social supports.

We got very tight time left, so I’m going to start it when you start speaking. Okay, I’m trying to think of how to formulate the question. I’m not going to be able to do that with all the pressure of everybody watching me on, so I’m going to let others speak and see if anyone else has some commentary on this. I do appreciate the answer on that.

I’m just going to end it there. You might have squeezed three or four extra seconds out there. Other speakers? Go ahead, Councillor Troso.

And then I’ll add myself to the list. Thank you, through the chair to Steph. Is this amendment essentially an amount to creating a gap and shutting this down, in your view, just to cut through things? I’m not sure that’s a super, that’s a very speculative question that I don’t, I’m not going to have.

If you’re going to ask a question along those lines, you’ve got to rephrase it, Councillor. That’s pretty speculative in putting our staff in a very awkward spot. Unless you’re, you’ve got some, not, okay, if you can’t answer that direct question, give the information again. Thank you, Your Worship, through you, I will reference a previous council decision, which was funding is in place until the end of March, which was yesterday.

So to answer your question, if there’s a delay, the funding is that the funding expired, essentially, yesterday. Thank you. I thought that was a very direct answer to my question. And with the indulgence of the chair, and through the chair, through the mayor, I’d like to ask the, the, the mover of this, um, amendment, if I may, whether she consulted with arcade before filing this to see if they had any feasible plans for having an alternative.

Well, we don’t tend to ask questions of other Councillors. I sometimes will allow it if the Councilor is willing to, but the Councilor also hasn’t spoken yet and could address anything she likes in her comments, not, and, and has no obligation to respond to a question from another Councilor on the floor. But it’s up to you, Councillor, if you’d like to answer. Well, I’ll respond.

I did not. And this Council voted nine six to stop, uh, all resting spaces in the beds actually increased from 30 to 35. So I’m not concerned about a financial cliff. Okay, Councillor, thank you.

So the answer is she did not. That’s so what, what I, what I’d like to try to understand, and it’s difficult to Council because I can’t go back and ask the agency, do they have some other alternative? I can’t do that. I can’t do that here as much as I’d like to.

Um, my view of this is that this is, this is a mechanism without saying so to shut down these services. And, um, I just really feel as if having this come to us at the last minute without having discussed this with the agency, I just think the they’re, they’re in an impossible situation. They couldn’t possibly comply with this. And the other point I want to make before I sit down is if our goal is to make arcade an attractive potential tenant to other landlords in other areas, I’m wondering whether a lot of the social media posts that portray the premises as being unruly, unkempt, dangerous, and all the other things that are being said really helps because I think the cumulative effect of these several postings, which are really intensified in the last week, I think is counterproductive to trying to assist this agency in finding another place.

Councilor, the motion on the floor is not to assist the agency to find another place. I know you’re talking about why you may or may not support the amendment based on the consequences for the agency of which there’s your own opinions with, but I would ask if you can kind of keep it to the amendment on the floor because I don’t want to enter into a whole bunch of debate on a, on another piece of this. Most certainly, um, I’m adamantly opposed to this amendment. I don’t, I don’t think it’s brought in good faith.

And I think the intention here is to shut them down. So I’m just going to point of privilege. Go ahead. Okay.

Yes. So there’s a point of privilege being asked. So I’ll go to Councilor Stevenson. Yeah.

Can Councilor Trossow stop talking about me and my intentions and what I intend? I can speak for myself. Yes. So I agree.

Councilor Stevenson, Councilor Trossow, we could say that I would encourage colleagues to state their own opinions. Uh, outright. But let’s not project what other counselors are saying or thinking or what their intentions are. They can express those for themselves.

They can express them in many different ways. Um, so, but in the council chambers projecting what someone’s intentions are, we’re going to, we’re going to avoid to do that. Okay. Yes.

Um, I can, I can see that. Thank you. In my opinion and in my view, having read this file, I think we would be putting this agency in an impossible situation. This is my, this is me.

This is my opinion. I’ve not heard anything from staff or others explaining what the path forward would be here without a substantial delay. So I’ll just close by saying, I really want to appeal to people to vote this amendment down. Okay.

I’ll turn the chair over to the deputy mayor. I’ll share a few thoughts. Thank you, Your Worship. I have your time are open now and we’ll recognize you.

Thank you. So I appreciate the discussion on this. I was glad to see a version of the motion come back so that we could utilize the funding sources available to us. Um, I want to say generally, I certainly understand the, uh, the challenge that exists in the old East Village and, and the discussion about the concentration of services and have supported motions in the, in the past to, to try to move beyond that, uh, that reliance.

I will say until I saw the actual piece of this motion and I think that there’s, the motion is a little bit problematic in the timing and that, as Councilor Trossa was alluded to, the funding ended yesterday. We have a council meeting today. The ability to transition today is zero. Um, and so it’s hard for me to support this particular motion.

Now, if there was a version of the motion with some sort of runway that would allow for the services to continue for a period of time that’s reasonable, uh, given it’s a time period from, uh, April 1st to March 31st, 2026. Um, that might be more widely supported in, in my opinion than a motion like this. I don’t know what that runway would be, but it’s got to be a reasonable amount of time to say, here’s the funding. You can continue your day drop in services as is.

There’s an expectation that you’re going to be looking for something and, you know, we certainly, uh, should give a reasonable amount of runway to allow for that search to happen. I think the deputy mayor is correct. I think it’s a difficult spot to find other spaces, but, uh, it’s very difficult for me to support a motion that basically gives absolutely no time for that to happen irrespective of the previous motions and directions we’ve given. Um, we are where we are today and we have the reality of the situation today.

I think one of the other challenges I have is, although I appreciate that motions have to be worked on sometimes the last minute by not having this particular motion on the added agenda, some of the questions that Council Troso have of the agency about what the response would be. It’s a bit of a question mark for me as well on how they would transition over a period of time, um, of no funding, you know, effective essentially today. Uh, if there was a motion on an added agenda, there could have been a piece of correspondence that come from the agency to outline the core, the, the consequences of such. So in the absence of those, um, I really would like to be able to expend the money.

I think the restriction basically makes it almost impossible to expend the money in the short term and perhaps indefinitely, um, given the, what the pressure would put on the organization effective today. So, um, I know the Councilor still has an opportunity to speak. I’m very interested in hearing, uh, what she has to say in her comments on this. My ask of some kind would be, uh, consider some sort of runway that, uh, if you wanted to add a provision of moving some services off of this location that would allow funds to flow and some reasonable runway to try to do the stuff that what you hear your colleagues through the presiding officer, what, what colleagues in this room are saying about their concern with the ability of the organization to find other space and continue services.

There seems to be a desire for those services to continue. I know the Council putting a motion on the floor has a desire for those services to continue, uh, not at this location, but I think we have to provide some avenue for that type of transition, not stop today, hope you can find some space, uh, to be able to expend the money. Our staff probably come back saying we can’t actually execute this agreement because there isn’t a location, um, in the short term. So I think there’s another path here, um, that we could entertain, but I’m interested to hear what those who haven’t spoken.

Think about that as well. Uh, thank you, Mayor Morgan. I’m going to return the chair to you, uh, noting that Councilor Palosa is next on our speaker’s list. Councilor Palosa, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, a question through you to city staff. Um, I’m going to assume that potentially the answer has already been no, but I know that we have Mr.

Warner with real tea services at the city. I know he’s a city employee working on city things. I recognize that, uh, arcade is not a city agency board or commission, but as council seems really intent on please find other space. Have we had any opportunities to Mr.

Warner providing any advice of places they might look or things that we might be in partnership with that might have space that could accommodate such uses. Uh, thank you through the chair. That is not something that typically realty would do. Um, thank you through the chair.

Can you hear me now? Um, typically that’s not something realty would do. Certainly, um, where we like to provide assistance to others. We have referred them to brokers and other individuals that could assist in that kind of work.

Um, unfortunately, realties are very small team and given the number of transportation projects and work that we’re already currently have underway, it would be very challenging to try to support additional agencies beside the city of London. Certainly, we try to provide assistance to boards and commissions where we can, but even that is challenging at times. So we, we could certainly assist them with some appropriate brokers and other listings that they could then seek to look at. Should that need their needs?

And certainly, that would be a simple email that we could provide. Thank you. Um, look, I know Mr. Warner just great work in a small, but money team just realizing that’s council direction.

Um, some resources could be made available. Um, I’m going to be a no on this. I don’t believe it’s actually getting to the source of the issue that if the issue is people gathering in a certain space that the motion before us would prohibit city of London funding from offering those basic needs services in that space and access to mushrooms. So you don’t need to defecate on a sidewalk and food and laundry facilities.

We can clean yourself up and feel like, like a normal resident of the city getting to present yourself in the way that you might like with decent dignity. Um, there would be nothing as my understanding from this motion that would preclude, preclude arc aid from using fundraise dollars. Um, which they do have in, in our well supported organization and some that they could still operate to some extent out of the space. My concern is that if we stay, use this funding, go find a space that we might have a delay in service for putting up roadblocks to providing service of these access to washroom, shower and laundry and meeting space and connecting with help.

Potentially increasing the costs of when they find different space of a delay in opening and increase in cost. They might need to make some retrofits and actually having a lower return on investment of services offered using taxpayer funds. So that just is my overall concerns that if we’re trying to have things not operating on the main street of a BIA that it looks like they still could just using different funding sources. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Other speakers, I’ll see any others unless you want to speak down. I do.

Okay. So I want to make it really easy for everybody to support this motion. The ones who have spoken did not support the last one. It was nine to six in November that the resting spaces were not allowed on a BIA as of January.

And this council did that. So we can, we said that as we went into winter. Okay. And the agency continued the beds.

In fact, they increased the beds from 30 to 35. They had a gala in November that raised 500,000. And right after we committed to the 4.3 million a year, they set a fundraising goal of $5 million to double their shelter spaces. Okay.

So there is no reason to believe that all of a sudden the doors are going to be closed tomorrow. What this is about is I could have argued the decided matter of council. I didn’t want to do that because that means it stops. And I do want the funding.

I do want to find another location. Arcade is going to continue to do what they do on Dundas Street. If it is at a smaller scale, that will be more appropriate and more like it used to be in the past. And we do need another place.

Right now we have 602 queens and we have arcade and they’re only a block and a bit apart. In the two years that we have been doing this whole of community and talking about decentralizing, we have not done a single new location outside of the core area. So this, I’m hoping this is an opportunity to find out even if they come back and say these are the hurdles and these are the reasons why council could then come forward with solutions. We just invested $2.6 million in outreach.

And this is not replacing money that we spent municipally. No, this is new funding. The vast majority of it is new. These are going to be massive investments in outreach services, which again, decreases or should decrease the pressures in the core area.

If we allow it, we have a downtown strategy coming up that is going to be looking at CIR and bylaw proactively enforcing. We’ve got an open drug use policy. Why would we spend 600,000 to bring people to an area where they’re not allowed? You’re not allowed in the encampments in municipal lots one and two.

You’re not allowed to hang out on the sidewalk. So what happens is we’re going to spend money to bring people to an area that they can’t be. And then we’re going to tie up money and resources on coordinated informed response on bylaw and police trying to counteract what we just funded. So what I’m saying is we’ve invested in the outreach that should take a lot of the pressure off arcade that is amazing at fundraising and they will continue to operate on dentistry.

This allows us to find another location somewhere to do that decentralization that we all committed to and to double the number of or add an extra open door because we have an open door at that arcade. We have an open door at 602 Queens and there are people living unsheltered across our city. It shouldn’t all be in one area and residents and taxpayers and law-abiding citizens have had enough of everything being about the unsheltered and the drug addicted who are living on our streets. We have done a lot.

We’ve made massive investments. At some point, we have to make a commitment to our downtown and to the people who live in that neighborhood. You can drive down dentistry and think oh it’s just boarded up buildings. Families live there, seniors live there and they cannot leave their apartments and that isn’t right.

This city needs to address the inequity of that area and this is the perfect opportunity. We’ve been talking about it with the core area action plan. It was not addressed. We’ve talked about it with the whole of community.

It hasn’t been addressed. This is a great opportunity to say we’ve invested all this money in the encampment outreach. Arcade we know will continue to operate that door and in the meantime we get to really work with them and see what we can do because what are we doing otherwise? So this is about balance.

We’ve just invested 2.6 million. This is about day time drop in for a few minutes service. This isn’t saving lives. We’ve got a door just a block and a bit away.

We’ve got outreach workers. It’s okay to take this pause and find a better location. So I’m asking people to support this because I don’t want to get into the decided matter of council. What they are doing is the exact same thing they were doing before except people aren’t allowed to put their heads on the bed on the table and I took the wording right from a staff report.

So I’m saying please don’t get into a decided matter of council because that’s where this is headed. So we’re going to fund it. Just not here. Any other speakers to this?

Councillor Layman. So I need some guidance here from the clerk. My intention is to in order to address the concerns of finding another location outside the BIA. If there be a way to fund the arc at that location until August 31st at which time look at another location.

So is that an amendment to the amendment or is that we have to vote this down and give me one second. So the answer to can you amend an amendment is yes. How you would do that and I need to look to our staff who would write the single source piece. If the council direction was for a period of August 1st 2025 to August 31st 2026 for the arcade street mission dash day drop in spaces provide day drop in space.

And after August 31st 2025 at a location other than the main street of a BIA utilizing housing service. So I think that would look and say if that makes sense and you could write something that way. Through you Your Worship, if I may, I think the intent of the motion is to both give runway and keep the importance of finding a new location and maybe direct them to find another location by August 31st or at the earliest convenience or no later than August 31st. I can’t keep it very simple.

So the challenge we have is we’re doing an amendment to amendment. So we can’t just like make make a new like we can strike and make a little bit new wording. But the clerks are trying to work with with that piece that already as the other than the main street of a BIA. Let me read let me read something to you and tell me if this works.

I need you to listen. Day drop in to provide day drop in space comma and no later than August 31st 2025 at a space other than other than at a location on the main street of a business improvement area bit of a mess. But if we might Your Worship, we would suggest to provide day drop in space at a location other than a main street of a business improvement area by August 31st. You move the August 31st to the end of that.

But you would still read that as you could flow money now for existing. Yeah. Like you’re not restricting all of it until after August 31st. That was our only concern with any correct.

Okay. That’s a question. I don’t even have a seconder yet. But I mean, you get the language for councilor name and first and then I can have a seconder and then I can ask staff to give us wording that actually works for the councilor.

It’s not go ahead. Thank you. We’re shipping through you. I think what’s important if we get the intent of the resolution is that you want us to be able to provide support to arcade to deliver the service as possible at their current location until the August 31st deadline.

But they need to find something and be out of that location providing some service in a different spot by the August 31st deadline. So that the in order for us to flow the money right now, which we have, and if council supports this, we need to be able to say that the money could be flowing to the one location for a period of time up until the August 31st date and have the ability to flow in a different location thereafter. That’s his intent. Yes.

No. Okay. Well, yeah. Go ahead.

Because I’m that. Thank you. And through you. So my question would be this.

How do you operationalize that for arcade? If you are staffing people, you say, wait a second, your contract goes until August 31st, as long as we can find another place. But if we can’t find another place, then your contract ceases. Is that how we anticipate a provider to operationalize that?

I guess is my question, because that seems pretty convoluted for for employees against worship. If that’s directed to city staff, this is we will follow the direction of council. So if council’s direction is to put time limit on this space, we will work with the service provider to do that. The precarity of that for their reality, I’m sure it’s going to weigh heavily on the organization.

As we’re trying to sign a lease from September 1 to March 31st, 2026 when this funding expires. So we will follow your direction on what’s a message to the agency. Okay. So I think we have wording that works, whether that can be operationalized, a whole different question.

But that’s not my job is to assist the council with the motioning wants to do day job and space to provide day job and space at the current location until August 31st, 2025. And after August 31st, 2025 at a location other than the main street of a business improvement area, the solicitor gives a thumbs up. That’s usually a very good thing. Okay, a point of order.

I don’t even have a second to get but point of orders override everything. So go ahead. My point of order is that this is in the essence of a referral. And typically, it’s just a referral of this thing until a later date.

And typically, when there’s a referral, there’s some additional language talking about what is going to change, what additional things are going to happen. Okay, so I’m going to stop you, Councilor, because that’s not a point of order. And if it is, I’m saying it’s not a referral. Referral would be refer the whole thing to a later date.

This is actually something that our staff have said all the pen structure, a sole source with these parameters. So it’s not a referral. That’s my really on your point of order. Councilor Layman, that wording seems to work.

So you want to move it. Is there a seconder for that particular wording? Deputy Mayor Lewis. Okay.

So there’s an amendment to the amendment to add that language. We’ll debate that now. Go ahead, Councilor Farara. Thank you, Mayor.

Question to the staff. In your previous conversations with the ARC, about potential moveings or a potential move, what has the ARC indicated to you of what they would require from us to actually find that new location or any type of indications of what they would require from us if the move actually took place? Go ahead, Mr. Dickens.

Through you, Chair, we haven’t made any active offers. We haven’t seen a short list of sites. We haven’t been asked to help broker any real estate deals, but from the organization, they’ve indicated they would need city help in navigating some zoning challenges or understanding those permissions. They may find a space that requires some sort of startup capital to retrofit or make it suitable for occupants or change the floor plan of the space.

So it’s safe for people to be in an open space and for staff to traverse and what that looks like. We know from previous efforts by the ARC to set up operations in churches, there’s been asked for assistance with plumbing and some of those operational pieces. We expect they would need support for perhaps furnishing that space or providing the supplies that are needed to provide drop-in services. There would be a number of logistical matters that would probably come with finding a new location, signing a lease that’s not already set up to provide this service.

Thank you, Mayor. So logistical challenges and assistance, which kind of equates to me of extra resources that may be involved in this potential move. There’s clearly lots of questions here that need to be answered before we could actually make a motion like this. I am really adverse to making decisions on the floor very late in the hour on such big items like this.

We’ve done that before and I guess I won’t say what happened. I’m just saying we’ve done that before. So I’d really, really push Council to say do not support this because we need more information for that. I’ve been hearing comments in my opinion.

I would like to say in my opinion, you know, like the big decided matter of Council discussion and this is kind of how this whole debate started. This is not a decided matter of Council. This Council voted to restrict resting spaces in a BIA and restrict the municipal funding going to that. That language is binding.

If that were to be a catch all phrase that would catch all the services that the ARC would bring, then it would say something different. Actually, as a matter of fact, at the same November 5th Council meeting, we had a motion on the floor that said we would relocate the front door services of the ARC from the 696 Dundas location to another area. That term was loosely defined, but the way I understood it would be the entire host of services that the ARC provides would be moved away. This really isn’t related to the amendment, which is adding the time frame Councilor.

So I get that you want to, this is not a general debate piece. Do you want to add the time frame that Councilor Layman added? So that’s the amendment. Okay.

Well, there is a, what I’m saying is there’s a lot of unforeseen costs, questions to be answered. And this discussion is not, it should be more comprehensive for something big like this. We have this, you know, we have a big item here in front of us. Like, like was said before by myself, this is one of the big pillars of our ability to respond to the homelessness crisis in the city.

We need to take more time with something like this. I know that there’s extra resources that are going to be involved in this type of motion. I know that this time frame is very tight. I know that there’s probably extra costs associated here.

So I wouldn’t be supportive of that. We, you know, for something so big, we need more time for this. If we want to give the arc sufficient time and sufficient resources to be able to relocate their, their facility, we just need more. We need more than this.

This is this, for me, this is way too last minute. And I’m really, I’m really not going to be supporting such a last minute amendment to such a big item. Okay, I have Councilor McAllister next. Thank you to the Mayor.

So I had to turn the light off. I’m in a dark cave right now. Yeah, I mean, I understand who councilman is going in terms of trying to create it one way. I think it just creates the same problems that we talked about previously.

Even the arc itself has said, you know, the stable funding is the biggest hurdle, right? Even with when we were talking about the basic provisions previous item, that’s why I brought up the notion of bringing the province into discussion about a new shelter, because I think these kind of relocation asks are big. And there’s a funding element, not just from the city, but from higher levels of government that has to go on in terms of if you’re going to relocate services, you’ve got to have the funding secured and in place. This funding does have its own timeline.

But I think there are a lot of larger conversations that go along with asks to relocate, where we need to bring in our provincial partners, whether that’s for operating dollars or for capital, because we can’t just relocate all the services on. And I think we’re going to run into the same problems, even if we give them this runway, it’s too big of an ask and too short of a time. There’s just too many questions and not enough answers for me to feel comfortable with this. And I think we’d have to go back to the original motion that was put before us at the committee.

Okay, Council Roman. Thank you and through you. So I won’t be supporting what’s in front of us as an amendment. And I’ll tell you a couple reasons why.

I do think that the logistical challenges with this would be far too difficult for the organization to operationalize. And if we want to create success in our community, we have to create the conditions to do so. One of the challenges we just heard is zoning. If they were to find a suitable other location, but it wasn’t zoned appropriately, would we have the ability to drop everything that we have going on in our planning department to fast track this application to meet said timeline, or would we have our own barriers to being them being able to potentially do that?

And I mean, we could scenario play this in a million different ways. Most of the time when we’re looking at a new location for something, we’re talking about public input. We’re talking about allowing for time for people to participate and understand what those services in their area could mean. Is there enough time to do so?

If April 1st, they have to go and find a new location. Let’s say that they were able to do that in a 60 to 90 day period. So now again, scenario playing, we’re saying you can find the figure out the zoning, the public input piece, and allow time for them to then set up and operationalize. We also have to realize there’s a lot of sunk costs into the building itself, into retrofitting the building, making sure that there is adequate space.

And then of course, there’s the facilities that are included in the building, the showers, the laundry, et cetera. But I want to remind people we’re talking about up until August 31st. So now we’re back into our conversation around extreme weather. And from my recollection, I do remember that arcade was being used as a space for people during extreme weather in the summertime.

They were our member notices going out for extra water distribution available there. So we actually have more than one conversation going on here. We have another motion with a report back to us on extreme weather that I also think intermingles with this as well. And the fact that we haven’t yet received that to know where we’re headed with that also I think presents a bit of a challenge.

So I won’t be able to support this at this time with the August 31st deadline. I really do think that if we want to talk about solutions, we have to do that at committee so that we have the time to really fully consider all the different scenarios as we play them out. Because within five seconds, I can think of another few around staffing and complications associated with the challenges that creates and some other challenges that we may be looking at with changing this timeline. Councillor Layman and then Stevenson.

Thank you. I’ve said address a couple of things. Finding yeah, there’s a lot is a big decision. I don’t like making this call at this time of night after a long meeting.

In the grand scheme of things, we fund millions of dollars to address homelessness. As far as last minute is concerned, here we are, period of April 1st, March 31st, since April 1st today, why weren’t we discussing this again? Why weren’t we discussing this a month or two ago? Where was this request from arcade?

Again, it seems that we’re always right up against the last minute thing. Where’s the forethought of what’s coming down months ahead? I find that frustrating. Here’s the thing.

As far as logistics and whatnot, you come to the end of August and as mentioned, it’s going hard to find a space just to find from September to March. Well, my feeling is we’re going to be at the same point again next year. We’re going to be at April 1st in 2026 with the same conversation. Let’s maybe now is a time to use the runway to maybe look for another location that will be suitable for a more long-term type of thing.

So I was just trying to address the concerns of some as far as a short runway for the arc, not to just cease operation immediately. Yeah, and that’s all I was trying to do. So vote as you may. Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. This has gotten way beyond what is before us. We are not relocating arcade. We’re not finding them another location.

They’ve been there for a long time. They will continue to be there. This is not safe space. This is not an organization that’s relying on funding for its existence.

Arcade has an ability to raise money. They’ve proven it. They’ve done it before. We are not relocating this organization.

It’s not on us. The decision before this council is, do we fund the daytime drop-in service at that location? That’s all that’s before us. And in terms of ramping up and ramping down staff, that is something that organization has done for a long time.

Until last July, they didn’t even have long-term commitment from us. Last summer was the first time we funded daytime services there. It used to just be winter response. They still operated.

We didn’t fund it. So we need to just scale this right back to what’s before us. And with all due respect to the council that put forward this motion, he asked us not to fund 10 transitional beds in the Oak Ridge area because of all the very bad stories. No, but it is relevant that…

Okay. Okay. Yes. I got a point of order.

I have to deal with point of orders. Councilor Ploza, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

You’ve already been specific to another speaker that is strictly on the amendment as before us in this location. If the comments can be kept to that, as the hour does grow late. Yes. I suggest that to another speaker.

So if you keep your comments to the amendment, which is the addition of the timeframe to the motion that you put on. This is a business improvement area. It was acknowledged in that when I came into office, we had a core area of action plan that number 69 recognized the oversaturation of services in this area. The fact that Arcade has a building there and operates services is not for us to shut down.

We get to decide as a council what we fund. And my request is that we stop using taxpayer dollars to fund service on a business area that this council has says they’re committed to revitalizing. I’m assuming that’s the same point of order? Yes.

Councilor, you can keep it. The motion on the floor is to amend your amendment to add the timeframe. Okay. So the point is still the same.

It’s got to stop. No, 100% am imposed to a runway till August. We do not need to continue funding. Daytime drop-in service where people can come in, get a meal, a cup of coffee, a dry pair of socks, or use the shower.

There’s one available at London Cares, a block and a half away. And Arcade will continue to do the beautiful work that they do without the funding. I do not want to, for another day, take the taxpayer dollars of the residents who live in that area and fund that service on the main street. That’s what I’m asking.

Just stop the funding of taxpayer dollars on the main street. We’re not moving Arcade. We’re not closing them down. We’re just stopping taxpayer funding on the main street of the BIA.

We had a 9/6 vote to do it. Okay. Okay. Keep it to the, you’re very close.

Ken, you want to wear it out? Thank you. Thank you. Again, I’m going to rise on this point of order because we do need to stick to the parameters of the discussion.

And it is continuing to go in sideways. And I’d like to see us again go back to the discussion at hand on the date. Yes. And the reason why I did not stop the Councilor into our last few sentences is because she said not for another day.

Does she want to fund the services on the main street of a BIA, which Councillor Layman’s amendment would give runway and continue the funding in the way that the Council described it. So, but keep it tight too. So tight. Why you are against Councillor Layman’s addition of the date attached to your motion.

I’m opposed to the additional date of a runway because we need to stop. This is an area in despair. And despite other Councillors and arcades saying they’re worried about the businesses, if they were to stop getting funding, that is not what I’m hearing. The majority of the businesses and the residents want us to stop funding it on that street.

They’re asking us, they’re begging me to stop it. That’s what I’m asking. So, I do not support this addition all time till August 31st. The time is up.

It’s time to stop. It’s summer. It’s a drop-in service. Lives aren’t at stake.

I’m not going to support it. Thank you. I don’t have any other speakers on Councillor Layman’s amendment. So, we’re going to vote on that now.

Okay. Just Councillor… Okay. Councillors, stop talking to each other.

We don’t have cross-debate at the meeting. Well, others are trying to run the meeting. So, no side debate can speak quietly, very close to the person beside you, but not across a couple of Councillors who are trying to participate in the meeting. So, we’re doing a vote now.

Councillor Layman’s amendment is open for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion fails. Five to nine.

Okay. That motion fails back on the amendment that was already on the floor, of which there’s been a number of speakers. This is Councillor Stevenson’s amendment. Okay.

So, if you haven’t spoken yet, I’m looking for, this is Councillor Stevenson’s amendment to add the C and the stuff with no changes to it. Okay. No other speakers on that? All right.

We’re going to vote on that. Yeah. Let’s close in the vote. Closing the vote.

Motion fails. Five to nine. Okay. So, now we have the main committee motion with no changes to it because the amendment failed on the floor.

Main motion now. No changes to it. Any speakers? It’s no questions, but you can speak.

There’s no point of questions. If you need a clarification about where we are, I’m happy to do that. What’s, what do you need, Councillor? Point of order, yes.

Realizing we’ve been through an amendment of an amendment back to the main motion. I know I can’t call the question, but if we know who spoke already and didn’t speak, just as we’re a council and that would maybe. So, what happened was, Councillor Ferrera put the committee recommendation on the floor. Councillor Stevenson made an amendment.

Nothing else happened. No one spoke. It failed. Yeah.

There’s no committee recommendation to make it through committee. There’s nothing here. Just what made it through committee. All the other parts are here.

There is no C. C failed the committee. Yes. Go ahead.

You can speak to what you put on the floor. Thank you, Mayor. I’d like to put the item C that was not a committee recommendation that failed that committee. I’d like to put that back on the floor.

I want to put C as it was originally at the committee. That’s correct, yes. Yes. That’s fine.

That’s different than what Councillor Stevenson did. So, you can do that. So, C as it was a committee, is there a seconder for that? Councillor Palosa.

Point of order. Point of order. Okay. Go ahead.

Yeah. I believe it’s a decided matter of council. Can you just articulate what you think is a decided matter of council and I can make a ruling on it? Because the essence of the rest, the change in name to drop in daytime spaces shouldn’t be enough to make it an undecided matter of council.

The resting spaces was the terminology used. It was 18 to 24 hour resting spaces that we funded from July to December. They used to take the mattresses away and put up tables and chairs, offer the showers and the laundry and all of the other things. Nothing has changed except that people aren’t allowed to put their heads down and rest on the tables anymore.

Okay. Thanks for the clarification. So, I’m going to ask our staff before I make a ruling on clarification between resting spaces and daytime drop in spaces. The two pieces, the part that was of the previous council resolution and this.

So, if you just articulate the difference to me, then I can make a ruling on whether or not it’s a decided matter of council. Three year worship, yes. When we looked at resting spaces, it was our interpretation that was focused on the 30 beds that were being provided. And when we look at a resting space, typically looking at a quiet, dedicated area where individuals can go and rest and sleep temporarily.

It’s often designed to provide separation from other space in the building. When we look at the daytime drop in, again, it’s more random touch points, looking at meals, showers, washrooms, connections with social workers, programming, intake, assessment, very, very hands-on, very transactional, whereas the resting space would be a dedicated sleeping area where folks would have dedicated time to actually do the sleeping. When we left with the council direction, we saw some clarification from our clerk colleagues and it seemed to focus on the interpretation was around. We’re not funding any of the resting space beds, which civic administration, we stopped funding those beds as per the council direction and our interpretation.

Point of order. We’re on your point of order. So there’s, oh, sorry. I’m dealing with the point of order.

Can I raise a point of order on a point of order? I don’t, I’m asking because. No, I got to deal with the current point of order and then you can point of order me afterwards. Okay.

So as chair, part of my role is to try to provide a clear pathway to decision-making on something for a council. And so this is what I’m going to do and I’m going to allow my reasons why. So I’m going to rule based on what I’ve discussed with the clerks based on what I’ve heard from our staff that it is not a decided matter of council that the motion can be put on the floor. Now, because my ruling is that it is not a decided matter of council, you can challenge the chair and should you defeat my ruling, it would be a decided matter of council and that interpretation of it.

So this is, I take no offense. This is a pathway to decision-making for council. So I’m going to decide based on what I’ve heard that it is not a decided matter of council, that the motion can stand on the floor. And if no one challenges it, that’s how it is.

And if they do, we’ll have a vote and that will, that will make it definitive and we can continue on with the debate or not. So that’s my ruling. Go ahead, councilor. I’m going to challenge the chair because the staff report called them resting spaces.

That’s what we funded from July to December. I just want to clarify for councilor ramen why I’m not allowing her point of order because it’s not for any reason other than the procedure by-law. When the point of order was called, I had to deal with the point of order. I gathered some information from staff.

You may have had a point of order related to that, but I have to deal and render a decision on the current point of order. The challenge of a chair has to occur by the member immediately after the decision is made. And so I can’t let a point of order between the two happen until I’ve resolved the ability and the right of someone to challenge the chair at the point of the decision. So that’s why I have to deal with the challenge of the chair now.

And I can deal with the point of order after whether it’s still relevant or not. So the challenge of the chair can occur. This is non-debatable and the motion is always that the decision of the chair be upheld. So a yes vote is you support my decision.

A no vote is you support that I got it wrong and that it was a challenge. Again, I take no offense vote however you feel is right based on your interpretation. And we’re just going to get that up in a second. Point of information?

Thank you. Point of information. So I’m confused because we’re talking about a decided matter of council. We just made a decision which dealt with the councilor’s motion on the same language around day spaces.

So when you’re saying something is a decided matter, is it only a decided matter if it’s in the affirmative or can it be a decided matter if it is in the negative because we just dealt with the same language? Yeah, I don’t think that’s inconsistent with what I just said. If you’re asking why was Councillor Stevenson’s motion if it was defeated as an amendment, why am I allowing councilor for a similar motion? It’s because it’s fundamentally different because it doesn’t have the piece that was the main restriction.

It was like 90% of the debate within it. It doesn’t have the restriction that basically okay so what are you asking? Sorry. What I’m saying is if the fundamental issue here is a decided matter of council, we just dealt with an issue around the terminology.

If it was determined that it was a decided matter, we wouldn’t have even heard the motion from the individual who’s now bringing it as a… So that is correct, which is why I have also ruled that it’s not a decided matter of council, which is in my opinion allowed Councillor Stevenson’s motion to stand the motion we just debated and discussed. So Councillors, but you can challenge the chair’s decision. No, not you.

I’m saying the council can challenge the chair’s decision. I’m saying consistently the whole time it’s not a decided matter of council by allowing the debate by dealing with the request and whether it was decided. Thank you. I understand what you’re saying.

I’m asking for clarification that if a decided matter is in the negative or the affirmative is still a decided matter. That is my point of information. I don’t think I can answer a hypothetical question on that. I’m sorry if I don’t understand.

Okay, we’re challenging the chair though. There’s not supposed to be debate. That was a point of order because there’s no point of information. I shouldn’t have probably taken that, but I just want people to be clear on why we’re doing what we’re doing.

So there’s no questions later. So this is the motion before us. Section 32.5 of the council procedure by-law, the ruling of the chair be sustained. So if you agree with my interpretation, it is not a decided matter.

You vote yes. If you disagree with that interpretation, you vote no. Okay, we’re opening that for voting. The ruling of the chair is sustained by a vote of 11 to 3.

Okay, so by ruling is sustained. The motion is allowed to be on the floor. It’s moved and seconded. It was a second.

Oh, Councillor Ploza was a seconder. Okay, now we’ll have debate. All that happened so far was a challenge to be on the floor. So who would like to speak to Councillor Ferrer’s motion?

Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Not to torture everybody, but I’ve got an amendment that I circulated around an additional 250,000 to the BIA. Just a question for you, Councillors, is it directly related to this amendment or the main? Because right now we’re just amending this into the main?

It’s directly related to this one. So you want to add it to this amended piece? Yes, that if we’re going to fund our aid, then we need to give more money to the BIA to offset some of the damages. So the interpretation I have from the clerks and I agree with is now that I’ve read the amendment, it is separate.

Although for a person moving it, it is important to do if we do see. It does not have to be done if we do see. So it’s an independent decision that Council can make. It’s a separate piece.

It can be made as a new D. So I would suggest that we deal with this piece first, see if it gets added or not. And then you would have every right to add an amendment on, add the D on a new D to say, because Council has now added this in, you feel like this is a justifiable thing to do. Correct.

But I have the option to do either, right? I can amend it and build it into this motion or do it separately? Yes. So the amendment is, so I understand that you feel it’s connected, but the amendment is a single source procurement, authorizing the administrative acts be conditional bond and entering the agreement.

It does not, it is, it would not be connected to a third organization, the BIA. It is, so it is not part of what? Okay, I’ll do it separately. So do it after.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. So other speakers too, Councillor Ferra’s amendment, which is on the screen.

Go ahead and speak. You know, even just sitting here, I’ve got colleagues calling me callous and on social media, it was, I think, or in the news, it was cruel and short-sighted to disagree with this motion. And honestly, the shaming and the name calling has to stop. The lives of the people on our streets matter, but so do the lives of the people in Old East Village.

And for me to advocate on behalf of them is not being cruel to anybody. We just invested 2.6 million in encampment outreach support. Point of order. Go ahead.

Once again, strictly to what’s on the floor versus thank you very dealt with early in the media or social media concerns as we brought up the Natayy Goode Commissioner. Thank you. Yes. So I’m going to ask everybody, and I know it’s a point of order, but I’m going to apply it to everybody.

There’s been a few people who have had to caution to keeping things tight on the amendment. The amendment on the floor is a single source procurement for this. Please just try very clearly to link your comments to this. There is a general motion afterwards, and I know that people can want to bring a lot of other stuff into it and have already, but we can keep it tight to the approving this procurement in this amount under these terms or not would be great.

So if you could try to do that, and everybody tried to do that. I can, and I realize it’s late, but oftentimes we are allowed to give reasons and things that do influence this decision. What we just did should influence this next decision or could. Like people are crying.

People are in despair, and all of the funding and all of the discussion goes towards the people who are living unsheltered. They have needs. Absolutely 100%. Do their lives matter 100% and we’re doing lots to do.

We’re doing lots for them. What are we doing for this neighborhood? We are hurting them by using taxpayer dollars to continue to fund an agency that is a magnet for people who don’t have a place to be. So we’re funding a drop-in center.

This is some place where people can just come inside for a short period of time. Arcade says that they look after 300 people a day. They only have capacity for 40 to 50. That leaves 250 people on the streets and in the back parking lots.

This is not, in my opinion, and in the opinion of many people that I speak to, a good policy decision, a good planning decision. It’s hurting people and we’re doing it. We’re choosing to do it. I’m not asking to shut Arcade down.

Okay. Okay. Point of personal privilege to stand up then. I believe to, once again, talking about the motivation of we’re in terms of this council collectively, it’s inappropriate.

And I think we need to sort of stick to something that can be on the floor and not make sweeping statements like that. Because I find it really insulting. Or to say that. I understand the point of order.

So I agree. I think we can speak our opinion without saying, because there can be different opinions on what council did, what council, the impacts of council decisions, what council as a group, what a decision means, can mean something different to each of us. So let’s try to keep it to the debate from us as individuals and not not project on either another councilor or the intent of council as a whole. Because I think we can all interpret that a little bit differently as we’ve seen from decisions and revisiting some of them in different ways.

So I agree. I don’t think that was the councilor’s intent to go there, but I’ve just issued that caution generally again, please. Listen, I’ve been advocating for this area since I got elected. It was in the core area action plan.

It was, we talked about then the hub plan said there wasn’t going to be any more hubs there. And yet safe space went in and then arcade, we’ve added funding since then a unity project has has another property there. This council gets to make this choice. Is it necessary?

Like, is it necessary to fund the 600,000 when the neighborhood and the councilor and the businesses are pleading to say, please don’t do this. Please find another way to help people that isn’t hurting, maybe even crushing this neighborhood. It’s not sustainable. It’s not sustainable, what’s happening there.

And the idea of funding a drop in that doesn’t let people come in and stay for the day, it doesn’t work on the main street of a business. And to have downtown London and City Plaza saying, they’re saying, yes, in your backyard, you know, we’ve got arcade saying, oh, we’re worried about the businesses. No, listen to me, listen to the BIA, say, please don’t do this. Please, it’s summer.

It’s not winter. They can only come in for a few minutes. 602 Queens is right there. We’ve got encampment.

I’m saying, please, please say no to this for right now. We need the money for winter response. You know, there’s other things we can do that everybody can get behind. I’m asking you to say the price that this neighborhood is going to pay to fund at this level an open door is going to cost us all.

And it’s going to put it puts a lot of stress on our bylaw or CIR and our police as we have to combat against something that we’ve just funded. So, you know, I apologize. It’s been a late night, but this matters. I am so people get matters.

And I’m asking you to please just a pause on this. They’re not going to close pause. Other speakers on the amendment. Seeing none, then we’re going to vote on the amendment moved by Councilor Ferrer, seconded by Councilor Palosa.

Closing the vote. Motion carries nine to five. I need so I need to put the as amended on the floor and then I can go to amendments to that. The as amended motion on the floor, which is everything plus what we just added.

Yes. Seconder, Councilor Hopkins. Okay. Any further discussion on our amendments to what’s on the floor, which is everything with the addition that was just added.

Okay. Seeing none, we’re going to vote on thing for voting. Both said open. What was that you wanted something split out?

Well, I need it split out. Like, obviously, I’m not going to support what I just voted against. But the other two, I was planning to support. Okay.

The vote was still open. We can still do that. Okay. So what are the parts?

How do you want to divide it? A and B can go together and see separate. Okay. A and B together, see separate.

So first, we’re going to deal with the as amended motion. A and B. That’s the faster. Just do it.

Okay. A and B are going to be first. A and B with all the being noted is all the preamble is first. Yep.

Go ahead. That should be open. Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to one.

And now C will open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 11 to three. Anything left in your report, Councillor?

That concludes the fifth report of the Community Protective Services Committee. Thank you, Mayor. Great report. Thank you.

You do another one next time. Okay. Budget Committee. Go ahead, Councillor Palosa.

It’s me. It’s a very smooth thing. Yeah. So hoping that I have not been given notice of any one to pull anything.

I am happy to put the first report of the budget to be on the floor unless you have something. I’ll note that the only changes through committee that we did was the annual the surplus deficit policy. We made a small change to add something back in for the community improvement plan and the letter for the Mayor and I to engage with agency boards and commissions have already started being implemented. Anyone want anything separate from the Budget Committee report?

Any discussion then if it’s all together? The Budget Committee report. Any discussion? Councillor McAllister, go ahead.

Thank you. Through the Mayor, I just wanted to quickly say in terms of believe it was number four, which was the 2.1. Just the amendment we added in. I mean, I guess we haven’t made the decision yet but already started the discussions with the solicitor general in terms of trying to get some provincial dollars for the Detective Services Training Center.

So already got a head start on it. Yeah. Let me say that’s no problem even though it wasn’t passed by Council because it was in our pre-budget submission to the province and sustaining the position of Council was discussed at the Budget Committee. You’re very free.

You’re not breaking any rules, Councillor. And I appreciate you being there and doing advocacy on behalf of Council for us. We appreciate it. Okay.

Any other discussion on the Budget Committee? All right. We’ll open the report for voting. Closing the vote.

Motion carries 13 to 0. Thank you. That concludes the Budget Committee report. Okay.

Added reports, Councillor ramen. I’ll apologize because I think it’s a bit of a long one but it’s your committee and you have some things to report out from our Council on closed session. So if you could present that, I would appreciate it. Thank you.

This is the fifth report of the Council on closed session. Your Council on closed session report property acquisition 120 Wellington Road Wellington Gateway project that on the recommendation that Deputy City Manager, Finance, supports with the concurrence of the Director of Construction and Infrastructure Services on the advice of the Director of Realtor Services with respect to the property located 120 Wellington Road further described as part of Lots 3 and 4 Plan 3 1 2 4 in the City of London being all of pin 0 8 3 5 7 - 0 0 9 3 LT contained an area of approximately 5963.2 square feet as shown on the location map as appendix v for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway project. The following actions be taken. The offers submitted by way while fan, sun child fan, the vendor to sell the subject property out to the city for the sum of 726,000 be accepted subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement as appendix c and b the financing of this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report here to as appendix a to property acquisition 122 Wellington Road Wellington Gateway project that on the recommendation the Deputy City Manager Finance supports with the concurrence of the Director Construction and Infrastructure Services on the advice of the Director Realtor Services with respect to the property located at 122 Wellington Road further described as part of Lot 4 Plan 3 12 4th in the City of London being all of pin 0 8 3 5 7 0 0 9 4 LT containing an area of approximately 5 6 6 9 0 8 square feet as shown on the location map as appendix b for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway project.

The following actions be taken. The offers submitted by way while fan, sun child fan and Dennis Kai Wing fan the vendor to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of 1 million 89 dollar thousand dollar sorry be accepted subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement as appendix c and b the financing of this acquisition be approved as set out the source of financing report here to as appendix a three property acquisition collale road advanced dedications through the holdings Inc that on the recommendation of the Director Planning and Development and the Director Realtor Services with respect to the property owned by drew the holdings Inc legally described as parts of Lot’s 37 39 on part plan 82 c parts of Lot 1 7 on plan 79 c part of Lot 10 plan 91 c part of Lot 6 concession 3 in part and part of Lot 7 concession 4 designated as parts 1 2 3 4 and 6 on plan 3 3 r 2 2 0 8 2 and parts 1 and 2 on plan 3 3 r 2 2 0 9 8 the road widening lanes lands sorry the civic administration be directed to introduce the proposed by-law at the municipal council meeting to be held on April 1st 2025 being a by-law to authorize and approve an agreement of purchase and sale appendix c between the corporation of the city of London and drew the holdings Inc for the purpose of the road widening for the sum of two dollars and subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement unauthorized to the mayor and the city clerk to execute the agreement and that progress was made with respect to item 4.4 as known on the public agenda thank you anyone have any issue with us voting those all together no no no no okay so the presentation is on the floor moved by council ramen any debate or discussion on those items from in-camera okay we’ll open those for voting council francs using the washer okay closing the vote motion carries 13 to 0 okay we have no deferred matters increase the city emergent motions there are none by-laws okay one second on by-law okay i’m gonna we’re gonna do these separate so we’re gonna do 105 separate and first we’re gonna do 108 after that that’s the transit commission we’re gonna do 127 which is so 127 we’ll do separate that’s bullet road uh we can do the added bills for the willing to gateway project separate because our added bills we do it separate anyways we’ll do 125 separate that’s the barn swallow one and councilor hilly are probably that’s that separate and then that should be everything the balance will be all together okay so we’ll start with oh yes did you get my text about the two i wanted to pull oh what what are the numbers uh 13.3 and 13.6 or do you want the bill number uh 105 and 108 yeah uh yes i’ve already got those separate yeah already covered okay so we’ll do 105 first so this is the um contribution agreement uh with the government of canada i need a mover and a seconder for this councilor hopkins council frank uh this is first reading so we’re gonna open it for voting like yeah open it yeah councilor stevenson council we’re voting on bill 105 councilor closing the vote motion carries 11 to 3 okay second reading same mover and seconder i need debate or discussion on second reading go ahead councilor stevenson i just want to say i’m vehemently opposed to this all right any other debate all right we’ll open second reading for voting closing the vote motion carries 11 to 3 third reading same mover and seconder we will open it as soon as it’s ready closing the vote motion carries 11 to 3 okay 108 is the revised by law for the london transit commission it’s revised because we changed the number uh so we’ll do it separate because it’s revised uh look for a mover and a seconder moved by councilor cutty seconded by deputy mary louis we’ll open first reading for voting closing the vote motion carries 12 to 2 all right second reading of the same bill same mover and seconder i need to debate or discussion on second reading seeing none we’ll open that for voting council trust rule indicating yes closing the vote uh motion carries 12 to 2 third and final reading same mover and seconder we’ll open that as soon as it’s ready closing the vote motion carries 12 to 2 the next one is bill 125 which is the barn swallow one uh mover and seconder on that councilor cutty seconded by councilor ramen thank you we’ll open first reading as soon as it’s ready this use your microphone council for your vote so i’m sorry this is already off yes i i vote no one closing the vote motion carries 12 to 2 a second reading same mover and seconder any debate or seeing none we’ll open that for voting also votes no closing the vote motion carries 12 third and final reading we’ll open that for voting as soon so votes no closing the vote motion carries 12 to 2 okay now i’m going to do revised 127 which is the bowler road item i’ll look for a mover and a seconder councilor um hopkins and ramen we’ll open first reading as soon as it’s ready uh council trust so you can uh just vote verbally trust our votes no thank you noted closing the vote motion carries 13 to 1 all right second reading uh same mover and seconder any discussion okay see none cross so votes yes and i apologize for that first vote closing the vote motion carries 14 to 0 final reading uh same mover and seconder we’ll open so votes yes closing the vote motion carries 14 to 0 is everybody okay with everything that’s left all together okay all right everything that’s left all together i need to move her in a seconder for the everything motion not clear and councilor ferra will open first reading so votes yes closing the vote motion carries 14 to 0 all right second reading uh any comments on all these bills seeing none oh yeah no to try uh we’re going to open second reading for voting like an adjournment move there counselor uh caddy cross the votes yes vote motion carries 14 to 0 third and final reading of the balance of the votes the same mover and seconder will open that for voting so votes yes was in the vote motion carries 14 to 0 okay all we have left is adjournment i want to say one thing before adjournment um i appreciate the long meeting i appreciate the discussion i want to go back and again thank our clerks and our clerks team for helping us find a solution to be able to appoint those committees i know it was a lot of work i know we thank them at the time but i appreciate uh how much that was from it and sure yes the claps at the end are very nice go ahead and a motion to adjourn councilor cuddy seconded by councilor stevenson all those in favor by hand put them up closing uh no i’m not closing the vote yeah adjourn thank you take care is