Open Council

8th Council Meeting

Open Council

8th Council Meeting

May 13, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:01 PM

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED Councillor P. Van Meerbergen discloses a pecuniary interest in item 2, clause 2.1 of the 8th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee and Bill No. 156, having to do with the Child Care and Early Years Master Funding Agreement, by indicating that his wife owns and operates a day care.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Hillier

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

4.1    Solicitor-Client Privilege/Personal Matters About Identifiable Individual/Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations        

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees and labour relations or employee negotiations with respect to the Councillor’s Office. (6.1/6/SPPC)

4.2    Litigation/Potential Litigation / Solicitor-Client Privilege Advice        

A matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. (6.2/6/SPPC)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

That Council convenes In Closed Session, from 1:07 PM to 1:13 PM.

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

5.1   7th Meeting held on April 22, 2025

2025-04-22 Council Minutes - for Council agenda

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the Minutes of the 7th Meeting of the Municipal Council, held on April 22, 2025, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

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

6.1    Whole of Community System Response Q1 2025 Quarterly Report        

  1.    Councillor S. Stevenson

6.2    Municipal Diversity Plan for Appointments to the London Police Service Board        

  1.    Councillor S. Stevenson

6.3    Commemorative Naming of Streets and City Assets - Status Update        

  1.    P. Khalil        

  2.    L. Cadieux        

  3.    L. Wheeler        

  4.    T. Hartley        

  5.    M. Allder        

  6.    C. Zadorsky        

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

  8.    M. Wheeler        

  9.    (ADDED) C. Cadogan        

  10.    (ADDED) C. Lord

6.4    (ADDED) 2024 Year-End Operating Budget Monitoring Report        

  1.    Councillors S. Franke and S. Trosow        

  2.    A. Badillo, Urban Roots London        

  3.    J. Zyrell Salazar, Pillar Nonprofit Network        

  4.    Dr. L. Bikos

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   8th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2025-04-28 CPSC Report

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 8th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 2 (2.1), 4 (2.4), 5 (2.2), and 6 (2.5).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.3) Amendments to the Traffic and Parking By-law (Relates to Bill No. 170)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated April 28, 2025, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025 for the purpose of amending the Traffic and Parking By-law (PS-114). (2025-C01A)

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (4.1) Request for Report Back on Quick Communities

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a report summarizing their research, stakeholder feedback and proposed next steps related to Quick Communities for presentation to the Community and Protective Services Committee on May 20, 2025; it being noted that the communication, as appended to the Agenda, from Councillors S. Franke and J. Pribil, with respect to this matter, was received. (2025-C09/S14)

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) Child Care and Early Years Master Funding Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 156)

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 April 28, 2025, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025, to:

a)    authorize and approve the standard form Child Care and Early Years Master Funding Agreement (“Funding Agreement”), substantially in the form appended to the above-noted by-law, as the standard form agreement to be used for child care and early years funding;

b)    subject to section3, severally delegate power to the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, and their written designate, to:

i)    insert the relevant information regarding the Operator into a Funding Agreement with an Operator;

ii)      make changes to the wording in the Schedules, and to add new Schedules from time to time, in accordance with Provincial Guidelines; 

iii)     approve and execute Funding Agreements based on the standard form agreement authorized and approved in section 1 of this by-law, and as amended in accordance with this by-law; and,

iv)    approve and execute amending agreements to the Child Care and Early Years Funding Agreement;

c)    the power of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, and of their written designate, to act under this by-law are subject to the following:

i)    such actions are consistent with the requirements contained in the Funding Agreement approved above;

ii)    such actions are in accordance with all applicable legislation;

iii)    such actions do not require additional funding, or are provided for in the City’s current budget; and,

iv)    such actions do not increase the indebtedness or liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London;

d)    repeal the following by-laws:

i)    By-law No. A.-7922-3 as amended, being “A by-law to approve a Neighbourhood, Children and Fire Services Funding Agreement Template”;

ii)    By-law No. A.-7253-138 as amended, being “A by-law to approve and adopt the standard form Children’s Services Wage Enhancement Grant Agreement”; 

iii)    By-law No. A.-8289-226, being “A by-law to approve a Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care Funding Agreement Template”; 

iv)    By-law No. A.- 7027-316, as amended, (2013), A By-law to approve and adopt the standard form Children’s Services Funding Agreement.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.1.4   (2.4) Program Changes to the Ontario Renovates Program (Relates to Bill No. 157)

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 April 28, 2025, related to Program Changes to the Ontario Renovates Program:

a)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to increase the maximum per household funding for repairs and accessibility modifications to $25,000;

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to increase total annual funding for the Ontario Renovates Program to $500,000 within the Ontario Housing and Priority Initiative Investment Plan;

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

d)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on May 13, 2025, to:

i)    approve the Ontario Renovates Home Repair Loan Agreement template, as appended to the above-noted by-law, to be entered into between The Corporation of the City London and eligible applicants;

ii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate, to complete, approve and execute agreements, substantially in the form authorized and approved in the above-noted by-law;

iii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate, to approve and execute amending agreements and amendments to the form authorized and approved in the above-noted by-law, provided such agreements are consistent with the Ontario Renovates Component program guidelines, as amended from time to time; and,

iv)    repeal By-law No. A.-7749-244, being “A by-law to approve the Ontario Renovates Home Repair Loan Agreement between the City of London and eligible applicants; to authorize the Managing Director of Housing, Social Services and Dearness Home to execute the Ontario Renovates Home Repair Loan Agreement”. (2025-S12)

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

8.1.5   (2.2) Whole of Community System Response Q1 2025 Quarterly Report

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated April 28, 2025, related to the Whole of Community System Response Q1 of 2025 Quarterly Report:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to discontinue the Whole of Community System Response Quarterly Report and replace it with a more robust publicly accessible Homelessness information dashboard that provides a broader depiction of the housing and homelessness landscape in London than currently exists;

b)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Community and Protective Services Committee in Q2 of 2025 with an overview of the content and roll out plan of a new dashboard for Council’s information; and,

c)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED. (2025-S14)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Hillier

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

b)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Community and Protective Services Committee in Q2 of 2025 with an overview of the content and roll out plan of a new online dashboard which would include detailed reports on homelessness in the City, and the City’s approved policies, in a format similar to that used by the County of Simcoe, for the information of both Council and the public; and,

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Stevenson

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

b)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Community and Protective Services Committee in Q2 of 2025 with an overview of the content and roll out plan of a new online dashboard which would include detailed reports on homelessness in the City, and the City’s approved policies/hyperlinks, in a format similar to that used by the County of Simcoe, for the information of both Council and the public; and,

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Hillier

That part a) of item 5, clause 2.2, as amended, BE APPROVED:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated April 28, 2025, related to the Whole of Community System Response Q1 of 2025 Quarterly Report:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to discontinue the Whole of Community System Response Quarterly Report and replace it with a more robust publicly accessible Homelessness information dashboard that provides a broader depiction of the housing and homelessness landscape in London than currently exists;

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Hillier

That parts b) and c) of item 5, clause 2.2, as amended, BE APPROVED:

b)     the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Community and Protective Services Committee in Q2 of 2025 with an overview of the content and roll out plan of a new online dashboard which would include detailed reports on homelessness in the City, and the City’s approved policies/hyperlinks, in a format similar to that used by the County of Simcoe, for the information of both Council and the public; and,

c)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED. (2025-S14)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 5, clause 2.2, as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated April 28, 2025, related to the Whole of Community System Response Q1 of 2025 Quarterly Report:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to discontinue the Whole of Community System Response Quarterly Report and replace it with a more robust publicly accessible Homelessness information dashboard that provides a broader depiction of the housing and homelessness landscape in London than currently exists;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Community and Protective Services Committee in Q2 of 2025 with an overview of the content and roll out plan of a new online dashboard which would include detailed reports on homelessness in the City, and the City’s approved policies/hyperlinks, in a format similar to that used by the County of Simcoe, for the information of both Council and the public; and,

c)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED. (2025-S14)

8.1.6   (2.5) Approval of the Template Contribution Agreement for Affordable Housing Projects (Relates to Bill No. 158)

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 April 28, 2025, related to Approval of the Template Contribution Agreement for Affordable Housing Projects:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at Municipal Council on May 13, 2025 to:

i)    authorize and approve the template Contribution Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law;

ii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate, to approve amendments to the Contribution Agreement;

iii)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute Contribution Agreements approved in the above-noted by-law, as amended, pursuant to  section 2 of this by-law with affordable housing project owners awarded funding through procurement processes;

iv)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Community and Housing Growth, or their written designate, to approve and execute amending agreements to Contribution Agreements executed pursuant to section 3 of the above-noted by-law; and,

v)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Community and Housing Growth, or their written designate, to approve and execute direct agreements between lenders required for affordable housing projects;

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

c)    the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, or their written designate, BE AUTHORIZED to approve amendments to the Sources of Financing for proponents who may increase the number of affordable units included within their project to a maximum of $45,000 per additional unit, subject to the confirmation of available funding. (2025-S11)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That part a) ii) be amended to read as follows:

ii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate, to approve amendments to the Contribution Agreement for Affordable Housing Projects;

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the motion be further amended in part a) ii) to read as follows:

ii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate, to approve amendments to the Contribution Agreement for Affordable Housing Projects with the exception of any changes to tenancy profiles or for supportive or highly supportive housing;

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the motion be further amended in part a) ii) to read as follows:

ii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate, to approve amendments to the Contribution Agreement for Affordable Housing Projects with the exception of any changes to tenancy profiles or for supportive or highly supportive housing;

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the motion be further amended in part a) ii) to read as follows:

ii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate, to approve amendments to the Contribution Agreement for Affordable Housing Projects with the exception of supportive or highly supportive housing;

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That part a) ii) to read as follows:

ii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate, to approve amendments to the Contribution Agreement for Affordable Housing Projects with the exception of highly supportive housing;

Motion Passed (8 to 7)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That item 6, clause 2.5, as amended BE REFERRED to the next meeting of Community and Protective Services Committee with the amended by-law.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 6, clause 2.5, as amended reads as follows:

That the staff report dated April 28, 2025, related to Approval of the Template Contribution Agreement for Affordable Housing Projects, BE REFERRED to the May 20, 2025 meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee to provide a revised by-law removing delegation to Civic Administration to approve amendments to the Contribution Agreement for Affordable Housing Projects with highly supportive housing.

8.2   7th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2025-04-29 - PEC REPORT

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 7th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 4 (2.3) and 12 (3.5).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) Business Improvement Areas Information Review

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following report BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) Proposed Amendments to the Business Improvement Area By-laws (Relates to Bill No.’s 161, 164, 165, 168 and 169) 

Motion made by S. Lehman

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

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 29, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025, to amend By-law No. A.-6873-292, Argyle Business Improvement Association Board of Management By-law;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 29, 2025, as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025, to amend By-law No. CP-2, The London Downtown Business Association Improvement Area By-law;

c)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 29, 2025, as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025, to amend By-law No. C.P.-1528- 486, A by-law to designate an area as an improvement area and to establish the board of management for the purposes of managing the Hamilton Road Business Improvement Area;

d)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 29, 2025, as Appendix “D” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025, to amend By-law No. C.P.-1519(a)- 11, Hyde Park Business Improvement Association Board of Management By-law; and,

e)    the proposed by-law as appended on the staff report dated April 29, 2025, as Appendix “E” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025, to amend By-law No. CP-1, Old East Village Business Improvement Area By-law.

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (2.4) Fast-Tracking Housing - Mayoral Direction 2025-001

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth the following report on the ongoing work to action Mayoral Direction 2025-001 Fast-tracking New Housing, BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the verbal delegation from M. Wallace, London Development Institute, with respect to this matter was received.

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (2.5) Housing Accelerator Fund: Completion of the City of London Housing Needs Assessment

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following actions be taken with respect to the City of London Housing Needs Assessment:

a)    the Housing Needs Assessment as appended to the staff report dated April 29, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE RECEIVED; and,

b)    the Housing Needs Assessment as appended to the staff report dated April 29, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE FORWARDED to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as required under the agreement for the Housing Accelerator Fund.

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (2.6) Housing Accelerator Fund Initiative 5: City Land Disposal Process Review for Increasing Affordable Housing

Motion made by S. Lehman

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 April 29, 2025, related to the continued improvement of initiatives associated with the Housing Accelerator Fund and the City’s Land Disposal Process Review for Increasing Affordable Housing:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to investigate and report back on the following recommendations:

i)    a Cash Flow Model to compare different land use options by revenue and cost; and, 

ii)    a Corporate Benefits Model to weigh municipal needs and interests to guide decisions;

b)    that the Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy BE AMENDED to exempt all land that is owned by the City of London, that is to be disposed of by Municipal Housing Development from Section 4.1 Declaration of Surplus Property; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts necessary to implement these recommendations;

it being noted that the following recommendations as appended to the  above-noted staff report, as Appendix “A” have been actioned in alignment with Housing Accelerator Fund milestones and will continuously be assessed to find opportunities for further improvements:

  •    offer concierge services and contribute to making land shovel-ready prior to disposition for private construction;

  •    systematic asset reviews to review City land assets for housing development Suitability;

  •    surplus land identification to circulate lands with no clear municipal use

Internally;

  •    enhanced collaboration which would require municipal departments to justify their continued land holdings for efficiency and transparency;

  •    pair Housing with Community Assets by maximizing existing municipal land holdings and integrating affordable housing with community assets such as libraries or community centres; 

  •    a standardized land use checklist to evaluate land suitability and rationalize land use decisions, specific to potential affordable housing development; 

  •    surplus land validation review to determine cost recovery opportunities; and, 

  •    create a reserve fund specifically dedicated to support affordable housing where proceeds from the sale of lands are held and can be later used to create new housing.

Motion Passed

8.2.8   (3.1) 3095 Bostwick Road (OZ-25018) (Relates to Bill No.’s 166 and 175) 

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 Southside Construction Management Ltd. relating to the property located at 3095 Bostwick Road, Talbot Village Phase 9:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 29, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, to:

i)    change designation of the subject lands on Map 1 – Place Types of The London Plan FROM Neighbourhoods Place Type TO Neighbourhoods and Green Space Place Type;

ii)    revise Map 3 – Street Classifications of The London Plan to REALIGN the Neighbourhood Connector Street classification;

iii)    ADD a new Specific Policy to the Neighbourhoods Place Type on Block 21 of the subject lands to permit stacked townhouses on a Neighbourhood Street at a height of 3.5 storeys;

iv)    ADD Block 21 of the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas of The London Plan;

v)    change the designation of the subject lands on Schedule 4 and 12 of the Southwest Area Secondary Plan FROM Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential TO Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Open Space and Environmental Review designations; and,

vi)    ADD a Site Specific Policy to the North Talbot and North Longwoods Neighbourhood in Section 11.1 iii) f) to allow a maximum height of 3.5 storeys and density of 80 units per hectare.

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 29, 2025, as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, as amended in part a) above), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve UR4 (UR4) Zone, TO a Residential R2 Special Provision (R2-3()), Community Facility CF1, Residential R4 Special provision (R4-6()), Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_)) and Open Space OS1 Zone;

c)    that the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issues through the site plan process if Block 21 doesn’t develop as a secondary school:

i)    to orient higher built forms to higher order streets with entrances and walkway connections to sidewalks. (TLP 291, 268);

ii)    to enhance corners with massing, entrances, signage, and glazing for pedestrian focus (TLP 290, 261); and,

d)    that the Planning and Environment Committee REPORT TO the Approval Authority the issues, if any, raised through the application review process for Talbot Village Phase 9 Subdivision located at 3095 Bostwick Road;

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

  •    C. Kulchycki, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.,

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

  •    the recommended amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024;

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the policies of The London Plan;

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the policies of The Southwest Area Secondary Plan; and, 

  •    the recommended amendment will permit development that is considered; appropriate and compatible with the existing and future land uses surrounding the subject lands;

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

8.2.9   (3.2) 1176 Crumlin Side Road (Z-9601) (Relates to Bill No. 176) 

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following action be taken with respect to the application of Peter Drankowski and Daniel Drankowski (c/o Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.), relating to the property located at 1176 Crumlin Sideroad, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 29, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025, to amend Zoning Bylaw No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM Residential R1 (R1-11) Zone, an Agricultural (AG1) Zone, and an Open Space (OS4) Zone, TO a Holding Residential R1 Special Provision/Residential R6 (h-9*R1-16()/R6-1) Zone, an Agricultural Special Provision (AG1()) Zone, and an Open Space Special Provision (OS5(_)) Zone;

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

  •    Olian, SBM Ltd.;

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the policies of The London Plan, including, but not limited to, the Key Directions and Rural Neighbourhoods, Open Space and Farmland Place Types;

  •    the recommended amendment is not intended to impact the character of the agricultural area and is solely intended to recognize the existing site conditions and the consideration of the Rural Neighbourhoods Policies in The London Plan; and, 

  •    the recommended amendment will facilitate an appropriate form of rural residential infill development with consideration for the long-term protection of agricultural resources and land use compatibility;

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

8.2.10   (3.3) 1140 Fanshawe Park Road East (Z-25027) (Relates to Bill No. 177)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following action be taken with respect to the application of Drewlo Holdings Inc. relating to the property located at 1140 Fanshawe Park Road East, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 29, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Residential R5/Neighbourhood Facility (h-120*R5-7/NF) Zone, TO a Residential R1 (R1-2) Zone;

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

  •    C. O’Brien, Drewlo Holdings Inc.;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the PPS 2024;

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

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates development of an appropriate intensity, compatible with the surrounding and planned neighbourhood context;

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

Motion Passed

8.2.11   (3.4) 459 Hales Street (Z-25026) (Relates to Bill No. 178)

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 Grand Oak Homes relating to the property located at 459 Hale Street, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 29, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-2(15)) Zone TO a Residential R6 Special Provision (R6-5(_)) Zone to allow for a 10-unit cluster townhouse development;

it being noted to the applicant that the following comments have been received:

i)    London Hydro will require a blanket easement;

ii)    CN Rail encourages the following conditions:

      A)    to undertake an analysis of noise;

      B)    a warning clause be inserted on land title, in all development agreements,

offers to purchase, and agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease of each dwelling unit; and, 

      C)    that the owner shall grant CN an environmental easement for operational noise and vibration emissions, registered against the property in favour of CN;

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

  •    S. Condon, SBM Ltd.;

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

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.2.13   (3.6) City-Wide: Revised Requirements for Notice of Application and Notice of Public Participation Meetings (O-25007) (Relates to Bill No. 167)

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 City of London relating to revised requirements for Notice of Application and Notice of Public Participation Meeting, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 29, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025, to amend The London Plan, by amending policies 1576_, 1580_, 1624_ and 1625_ associated with public notification of applications and public participation meetings related to Planning Act applications;

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

  •    M. Wallace, London Development Institute;

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

  •    the recommended amendments are consistent with regulations under the Planning Act; and,

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the general intent of The London Plan, including but not limited to Our Tools part of the Plan;

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

8.2.14   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the Deferred Matters List BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.3) Communication - D. R. Schmidt - Referred to PEC (SPPC/4/4.1)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the following actions be taken:

a)    the communication from D. R. Schmidt, Development Manager, Corlon Properties Inc./Sunningdale Golf & Country Club Ltd., referred to the Planning and Environment Committee from the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee meeting held on March 25, 2025, related to the Mobility Master Plan – Cycling Network Maps BE RECEIVED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee with respect to the existing traffic calming policy standards through the design specification guidelines through Plans of Subdivision approvals with respect to neighbourhood connectors;

it being noted that a verbal delegation from D. R. Schmidt, with respect to this matter was received.

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

that part b) BE AMENDED to read as follows:

b)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee with respect to the existing traffic calming policy standards through the design specification guidelines through Plans of Subdivision approvals with respect to neighbourhood connectors, as well as related policies of The London Plan and City of London Design and Specifications Requirement Manual;

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That item 4, clause 2.3, as amended BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 4, clause 2.3, as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken:

a)    the communication from D. R. Schmidt, Development Manager, Corlon Properties Inc./Sunningdale Golf & Country Club Ltd., referred to the Planning and Environment Committee from the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee meeting held on March 25, 2025, related to the Mobility Master Plan – Cycling Network Maps BE RECEIVED; and

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee with respect to the existing traffic calming policy standards through the design specification guidelines through Plans of Subdivision approvals with respect to neighbourhood connectors, as well as related policies of The London Plan and City of London Design and Specifications Requirement Manual;

it being noted that a verbal delegation from D. R. Schmidt, with respect to this matter was received.

8.2.12   (3.5) 3849 Campbell Street North (Z-9614) (Relates to Bill No. 179)

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 Colonel Talbot Developments relating to the property located at 3849 Campbell Street North:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated April 29, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 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 Urban Reserve (UR4) TO a Residential R5/R6/R8/R9 (R5-4()/R6-5()/R8-4()-D100-H32/ R9-3()-H32), a Residential R5/R6 (R5-4()/R6-5(), and an Open Space (OS5) Zone; and,

b)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider design and layout issues through the site plan process that incorporates measures to provide: an enhanced landscaped open space strip adjacent to the OS5 zone to minimize impacts on the natural heritage system; and public access through the site from the proposed terminus of Savoy Street to the future extension of Hayward Drive;

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

  •    A. Vandersluis, Auburn Developments;

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

  •    the recommended amendment is consistent with the PPS 2024;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan, including, but not limited to the Neighbourhoods Place Type and the Southwest Area Secondary Plan; and,

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates a range of housing options in a location considered appropriate and compatible with the existing and future land uses surrounding the subject lands;

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 (12 to 3)

8.3   6th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2025-05-01 SPPC Report 6

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 6th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of item 8 (5.2).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) Request for a Shareholder’s Meeting - London Hydro Inc.

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2024 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for London Hydro Inc.:

a)      the 2024 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for London Hydro Inc. BE HELD at a meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on May 27, 2025, for the purpose of receiving the report from the Board of Directors of London Hydro Inc. in accordance with the Shareholder Declaration and the Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16; and

b)      the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to provide notice of the 2024 Annual Meeting to the Board of Directors for London Hydro Inc. and to invite the Chair of the Board and the Chief Executive Officer of London Hydro Inc. to attend the Annual Meeting and present the report of the Board in accordance with the Shareholder Declaration;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated March 31, 2025, from C. Graham, Chair, Board of Directors, London Hydro Inc., with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) Request for a Shareholder’s Meeting - London & Middlesex Community Housing

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2024 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for London & Middlesex Community Housing:

a)      the 2024 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for London & Middlesex Community Housing BE HELD at a meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on June 17, 2025, for the purpose of receiving the report from the Board of Directors of London & Middlesex Community Housing in accordance with the Shareholder Declaration and the Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16; and

b)      the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to provide notice of the 2024 Annual Meeting to the Board of Directors for London & Middlesex Community Housing and to invite the Chair of the Board and the Chief Executive Officer of London & Middlesex Community Housing to attend the Annual Meeting and present the report of the Board in accordance with the Shareholder Declaration;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated April 16, 2025, from P. Chisholm, Chief Executive Officer, London & Middlesex Community Housing with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.3) ReconciliAction Plan

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the ReconciliAction Plan and accompanying staff report dated May 1, 2025:

a)    on the recommendation of the City Manager, the report titled ReconciliAction Plan, including the ReconciliAction Plan, BE RECEIVED for approval; and

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to forward the ReconciliAction Plan to the Tourism London Board, London and Middlesex Community Housing Board of Directors, and the London Public Library Board.

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (4.1) London & Middlesex Community Housing Board of Directors Request for Extension of Terms

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the London & Middlesex Community Housing Board of Directors:

a)  the term for Phil Squire, Chair, London & Middlesex Community Housing Board of Directors BE EXTENDED from December 31, 2024 to September 30, 2027;

b)  the term for Greg Thompson, London & Middlesex Community Housing Board of Directors BE EXTENDED from December 31, 2024 to September 30, 2027; and

c)  the term for Kathleen Savoy, Tenant, London & Middlesex Community Housing Board of Directors BE EXTENDED from December 31, 2026 to September 30, 2027;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated April 7, 2025 from P. Chisholm, CEO, London & Middlesex Community Housing with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (4.2) Canada Disability Benefit - Councillors H. McAlister, P. Cuddy and S. Lewis

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Canada Disability Benefit:

a)  the Mayor BE REQUESTED to communicate to Premier Ford and Minister Parsa, that the Municipal Council calls on the Government of Ontario to follow Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and Nunavut in committing to not reduce or claw back any provincial assistance related to the implementation of the Canada Disability Benefit; and

b) the Mayor BE REQUESTED to advocate with his Ontario Big City Mayor’s colleagues to take a united position on this matter;

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

  •    a communication from J. Salisbury;

  •    a communication from A. Roberts;

  •    a communication from D. Slater;

  •    a communication from A. Lowe;

  •    a communication from A. Does;

  •    a communication from D. Hayes;

  •    a communication from J. Benstead;

  •    a communication from K. MacLennan;

  •    a communication from I. Gillis; and

  •    a communication from S. Hay;

it being further noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard verbal delegations from J. Salisbury and A. Roberts with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (5.1) 1st Report of the Governance Working Group

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 1st Report of the Governance Working Group from its meeting held on April 24, 2025:

a)     the following actions be taken with respect to the Memo, dated April 24, 2025, from E. Hunt, Manager, Legislative Services, related to Agencies, Boards and Commissions:

i)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consult with Agencies, Boards and Commissions with respect to the existing application and provide questions they would recommend being placed on the application; and,

iii)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at the next meeting of the Governance Working Group with respect to the potential to extend the terms of the current Agencies, Boards and Commissions to the end of January 2027 and to extend the application window to two weeks following the Municipal Election to allow for greater time for applicants and consideration of appointments by the incoming Council;

b)    the following actions be taken with respect to the MNP – London Housing Development Projects – Lessons Learned Review document, dated January 29, 2025:

i)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to Council, as soon as possible, when new affordable housing funding programs become available, providing details of the program, and identifying the proposed populations and support needs to be served, as well as reporting back on any significant changes to projects, and providing an opportunity for Council to approve moving forward with the application; and,

ii)    the above-noted document BE REFERRED to the next meeting of the Governance Working Group for further consideration;

c)    clauses 1.1, 4.2 and 5.1 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (5.2) Municipal Diversity Plan for Appointments to the London Police Service Board (Relates to Bill No. 163)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Legal Services, the following actions be taken:

a)    the report entitled “Municipal Diversity Plan for Appointments to the London Police Services Board” BE RECEIVED for information; and

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated May 1, 2025 as Appendix “A”, being the “Municipal Diversity Plan for Appointments to the London Police Service Board Policy” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025 to adopt the Municipal Diversity Plan for Appointments to the London Police Service Board.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by E. Peloza

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

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 3:23 PM and reconvenes at 3:36 PM.

8.4   8th Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee

2025-04-30 ICSC Report 8

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 8th Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 7 (2.2) and 8 (2.4).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by C. Rahman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) 1st Report of the County City Liaison Committee

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 1st Report of the County/City Liaison Committee from its meeting held on April 4, 2025:

a)   the following actions be taken with respect to Public Health Funding:

i)   that the County/City Liaison Committee members recommend to their respective Councils that the joint advocacy approach to shared costs BE CONTINUED; and

ii)   that the verbal update from Deputy Warden A. DeViet regarding the Public Health Funding and the communication dated January 21, 2025 from the Middlesex-London Health Unit BE RECEIVED;

b)   clauses 1.1, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.5 and 4.6 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.3) Court Security and Prisoner Transportation Program Transfer Payment Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 159)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated April 30, 3025 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025 to:

a)    approve the Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement between His Majesty the King in right of Ontario as represented by the Solicitor General and The Corporation of the City of London for the provision of funding for the Court Security and Prisoner Transportation Program (“Agreement”) attached as Schedule “1” to the staff report dated April 30, 2025;

b)    authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute the Agreement;

c)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports to approve any future amending agreements between His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario as represented by the Solicitor General and The Corporation of the City of London with respect to the Court Security and Prisoner Transportation Program (“CSPT”);

d)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute any future amending agreements between His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario as represented by the Solicitor General and The Corporation of the City of London with respect to the Court Security and Prisoner Transportation Program (“CSPT”) approved by the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports; and

e)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports (or designate) to execute any reports required by the province under the Agreement.

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.6) Employee Attendance 2024

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports, the report with respect to the Employee Attendance 2024 BE RECEIVED for information purposes.

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (2.8) Amendments to the Waste Discharge By-law WM-16 and the Wastewater and Stormwater By-law WM-28 (Relates to Bill No.’s 173 and 174)

Motion made by C. Rahman

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

a)    the proposed amending by-law, appended to the staff report dated April 30, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025 for the purpose of amending the Waste Discharge By-Law (WM-16); and

b)    the proposed amending by-law, appended to the staff report dated April 30, 2025 as Appendix ‘B’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025 for the purpose of amending the Wastewater and Stormwater By-law (WM-28).

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (2.9) Springbank Dam Contract Amendment

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 construction tender and consulting engineer fees associated with the Springbank Dam Decommissioning project:

a)    Springbank Dam Decommissioning and Bank Restoration Project (RFT-2024-070) construction contract value with 2220742 Ontario Ltd. o/a Bronte Construction BE INCREASED by $1,649,048.54, including contingency, for a total contract value of $5,999,910.10 (excluding HST) in accordance with Section 20.3 (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the contract administration fees for Stantec Consulting Ltd. BE INCREASED in accordance with the estimate on file, at an upset limit of $221,458, including 10% contingency, excluding HST, from $1,056,385.43 to a total upset limit of $1,277,843.43 in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

c)    the post-construction monitoring fees related to the mussel relocation BE AWARDED to Stantec Consulting Ltd. in accordance with the estimate on file, at an upset limit of $113,600, including 10% contingency, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

d)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the staff report dated April 30, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’;

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

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

g)    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

8.4.9   (2.5) 2024 Year-End Capital Budget Monitoring Report

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2024 Year-End Capital Budget Monitoring Report:

a) the 2024 Year-End Capital Budget Monitoring Report BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted that the life-to-date capital budget represents $4.0 billion with $2.3 billion committed and $1.7 billion uncommitted; it being further noted that the City Treasurer, or designate, will undertake the housekeeping budget adjustments identified in the report, in accordance with the Multi-Year Budget Policy adopted by amending by-law No. CPOL.-45(c)-209;

b) the status updates of active 2021 life-to-date capital budgets (2021 and prior) having no future budget requests, as appended to the staff report dated April 30, 2025 as Appendix “B”, BE RECEIVED for information;

c) the following actions be taken with respect to the completed capital projects identified in Appendix “C”, and the budget adjustments in Appendix “D”, as appended to the staff report:

i) the capital projects included in Appendix “C”, with net surplus funding of $13.7 million, BE CLOSED;

ii) the capital funding identified in Appendix “D”, Table 1 and Table 3, with net surplus funding of $5.2 million, BE RELEASED;

iii) the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to execute the required capital budget adjustments identified in Appendix “D”, Table 2, noting that $36.9 million of capital funding is deferred to 2028;

iv) the following actions be taken with respect to the funding associated with i) and ii), above:

Rate Supported

A) pay-as-you-go funding of $1.6 million BE TRANSFERRED to capital receipts;

B) authorized but unissued debt financing of $0.9 million BE RELEASED from the capital budget; 

C) uncommitted reserve fund drawdowns of $8.3 million BE RELEASED back into the reserve funds which originally funded the projects;

Non-Rate Supported

D) uncommitted reserve fund drawdowns of $7.7 million BE RELEASED back into the reserve funds which originally funded the projects; and

E) other net non-rate supported funding sources of $0.4 million BE ADJUSTED in order to facilitate project closings.

Motion Passed

8.4.10   (2.7) Delegation of Authority By-law Update (Relates to Bill No. 162)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated April 30, 2025 as Appendix ‘B’, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025, to amend By-law A.-8386-153, being “A by-law to delegate the authority to bind The Corporation of the City of London in defined instances to identified positions within the Civic Administration”, to repeal and replace Schedule ‘A’ and to add the new Schedule ‘B’.

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (2.2) Commemorative Naming of Streets and City Assets - Status Update

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the report on Commemorative Naming of Streets and City Assets – Status Update:

a)    the report BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to apply the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s “Ontario Human Rights Based Approach Framework” (as appended to the staff report dated April 30, 2025 as Appendix ‘B’) for commemorative naming requests for new Streets and City Assets;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to initiate public engagement with the impacted neighbourhood to rename the (former) Paul Haggis Park and (former) Trooper Mark Wilson Park and;

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to rename Trooper Wilson Place to Peacekeeper Place.

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Trosow

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

e) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to rename Plantation Road to Larch Road, noting that the proposed name is included on the City’s pre-approved list of street names, aligns with the existing policy framework, and has been reviewed using the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Human Rights-Based Approach Framework, with input from the City’s Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression Division; it being noted that this work will be completed within the next six months.

Motion Failed (6 to 9)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to amend with a new part e) to read as follows:

e) Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to commence public engagement with the impacted neighbourhood to consider the renaming of Plantation Road.

Motion Failed (6 to 9)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Motion to approve part b):

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to apply the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s “Ontario Human Rights Based Approach Framework” (as appended to the staff report dated April 30, 2025 as Appendix ‘B’) for commemorative naming requests for new Streets and City Assets;

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Motion to approve part d):

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to rename Trooper Wilson Place to Peacekeeper Place.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Motion to approve parts a) and c):

That the following actions be taken with respect to the report on Commemorative Naming of Streets and City Assets – Status Update:

a)    the report BE RECEIVED for information;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to initiate public engagement with the impacted neighbourhood to rename the (former) Paul Haggis Park and (former) Trooper Mark Wilson Park and;

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 5, clause 2.2 reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the report on Commemorative Naming of Streets and City Assets – Status Update:

a)    the report BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to apply the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s “Ontario Human Rights Based Approach Framework” (as appended to the staff report dated April 30, 2025 as Appendix ‘B’) for commemorative naming requests for new Streets and City Assets;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to initiate public engagement with the impacted neighbourhood to rename the (former) Paul Haggis Park and (former) Trooper Mark Wilson Park and;

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to rename Trooper Wilson Place to Peacekeeper Place.

8.4.8   (2.4) 2024 Year-End Operating Budget Monitoring Report

At 4:52 PM, Councillor S. Franke leaves the meeting.

At 4:53 PM, Councillor S. Franke enters the meeting.

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2024 Year-End Operating Budget Monitoring Report:

a)    the 2024 Operating Budget Year-End Monitoring Report for the Property Tax Supported Budget, Water Budget, and Wastewater and Treatment Budget BE RECEIVED for information. An overview of the corporate positions are outlined below:

i)    Property Tax Supported Budget surplus of $58.8 million;

ii)    Water Rate Supported Budget surplus of $0.7 million; and

iii)   Wastewater and Treatment Rate Supported Budget balanced at year-end after drawing $37 thousand from the Wastewater Budget Contingency Reserve;

iv)   Notwithstanding the Surplus/Deficit Policy, Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to allocate the Property Tax Supported Budget surplus as follows:

  1.    $16.6 million to be retained in the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve in accordance with Surplus/Deficit Policy section 4.1.2 b) to be utilized to finance the 2024 cost of statutory development charges exemptions and discounts in excess of budget;

  2.    $25.3 million to be contributed to the Debt Substitution Reserve Fund in accordance with Surplus/Deficit Policy section 4.1.2 c) i) to reduce future debt issuance;

  3.    Remaining $16.9 million to be retained in the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve, to be applied evenly as tax levy mitigation in 2026 and 2027 through a business case in the 2026 Budget Update.

it being noted that the Water, and Wastewater & Treatment Budget surplus will be allocated in accordance with the Council Approved Surplus/Deficit Policy;

b)    the request for RBC Place London to transfer $200,000 of their $217,644 Year-end Operational Surplus to their Reserves ($100,000 to the RBC Place Renewal Reserve Fund and $100,000 to the Operational Reserve) BE APPROVED; it being noted that the remaining $17,644 surplus will be retained as working capital by RBC Place London (see Appendix ‘B’, as appended to the staff report dated April 30, 2025, for the letter from RBC Place London);

it being noted that the reported year-end position is subject to completion of the 2024 financial statement audit;

it being further noted that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated April 26, 2025 from C. Butler and a communication from Mayor J. Morgan and Deputy Mayor S. Lewis with respect to this matter.

At 4:59 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair.

At 5:03 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by C. Rahman

Motion to approve part a) iv) 3:

iv)   Notwithstanding the Surplus/Deficit Policy, Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to allocate the Property Tax Supported Budget surplus as follows:

  1.    Remaining $16.9 million to be retained in the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve, to be applied evenly as tax levy mitigation in 2026 and 2027 through a business case in the 2026 Budget Update.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Motion to approve the balance:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2024 Year-End Operating Budget Monitoring Report:

a)    the 2024 Operating Budget Year-End Monitoring Report for the Property Tax Supported Budget, Water Budget, and Wastewater and Treatment Budget BE RECEIVED for information. An overview of the corporate positions are outlined below:

i)    Property Tax Supported Budget surplus of $58.8 million;

ii)    Water Rate Supported Budget surplus of $0.7 million; and

iii)   Wastewater and Treatment Rate Supported Budget balanced at year-end after drawing $37 thousand from the Wastewater Budget Contingency Reserve;

iv)   Notwithstanding the Surplus/Deficit Policy, Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to allocate the Property Tax Supported Budget surplus as follows:

  1.    $16.6 million to be retained in the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve in accordance with Surplus/Deficit Policy section 4.1.2 b) to be utilized to finance the 2024 cost of statutory development charges exemptions and discounts in excess of budget;

  2.    $25.3 million to be contributed to the Debt Substitution Reserve Fund in accordance with Surplus/Deficit Policy section 4.1.2 c) i) to reduce future debt issuance;

it being noted that the Water, and Wastewater & Treatment Budget surplus will be allocated in accordance with the Council Approved Surplus/Deficit Policy;

b)    the request for RBC Place London to transfer $200,000 of their $217,644 Year-end Operational Surplus to their Reserves ($100,000 to the RBC Place Renewal Reserve Fund and $100,000 to the Operational Reserve) BE APPROVED; it being noted that the remaining $17,644 surplus will be retained as working capital by RBC Place London (see Appendix ‘B’, as appended to the staff report dated April 30, 2025, for the letter from RBC Place London);

it being noted that the reported year-end position is subject to completion of the 2024 financial statement audit;

it being further noted that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated April 26, 2025 from C. Butler and a communication from Mayor J. Morgan and Deputy Mayor S. Lewis with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.5   9th Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee

2025-05-12 Special ICSC Report 9

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 9th Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by C. Rahman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   Spring 2025 Debenture Issuance Update

Motion made by C. Rahman

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

a)    the issuance of serial debentures for a total of $26,200,000 BE APPROVED, noting the average all-in rate is 3.763% over a 10-year term and that all debt has been placed with investors in the capital markets; and

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated May 12, 2025 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on May 13, 2025 to execute the borrowing upon serial debentures in the aggregate principal amount of $26,200,000 towards the cost of certain capital works of the Corporation of the City of London.

Motion Passed

9.   Added Reports

That it BE NOTED that Councillor C. Rahman presented the 8th Report of the Council in Closed Session, by noting progress was made with respect to the items noted on the Agenda.

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

None.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 156 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Second Reading of Bill No. 156 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 156 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Pribil

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 157 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Pribil

That Second Reading of Bill No. 157 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Pribil

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 157 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 163 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That Second Reading of Bill No. 163 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 163 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 179 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That Second Reading of Bill No. 179 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 179 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 155 to Bill No. 178, excluding Bill No.’s 156, 157, 158 and 163 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 155 to Bill No. 178, excluding Bill No.’s 156, 157, 158 and 163 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 155 to Bill No. 178, excluding Bill No.’s 156, 157, 158 and 163 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 5:19 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 (4 hours, 34 minutes)

[16:31] Okay, thank you, please be seated. Okay, welcome to the 8th Meeting of Municipal Council, May 13th, a beautiful day outside. Perhaps if we work through this meeting quickly and efficiently, we could see the sun. I’m gonna start with the land acknowledgement. We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabak, Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwak, and Adwondron peoples. We honor to respect the history languages, culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home.

[17:07] We acknowledge all treaties that are specific to this area, the two-row Wampum Belt Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Silver Covenant Chain, Beaver Hunting Grounds Treaty of the Haudenosaunee and Fan Treaty of 1701, the McKee Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, the Huron-Track Treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabak, and the Dish With One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabak and Haudenosaunee. Green indigenous nations that are neighbors to Lene are the Chippewas, the Thames First Nation, United 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 Lene is also committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request.

[17:47] To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact council agenda at london.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. So with that, I will introduce our performer today. Ficker is a singer-songwriter and musician from London, Ontario. And over the past four years, they have started performing their own live music. Ficker loves to sing, play, and listen to all genres of music, and they embrace a fluid exploratory approach to sounds that reflect their wide-ranging musical tastes.

[18:26] They feel they are genre-less, which is freeing, as they’ve always desired a space to explore music without being boxed in. The recent influences are rooted in jazz, soul, and neo-soul, though they are still discovering how to use those sounds, how those sounds will shape the songs that they are currently writing. Ficker’s music is available on streaming platforms under the name Ficker, F-I-K-E-R, with their song “Heavy Hand” now released. Please rise and join me in welcoming Ficker, who will now perform the National Anthem for us. ♪ Canada ♪ ♪ Home and tiv’lant ♪ ♪ Through patron love ♪ ♪ It’s ‘cause we see ♪ ♪ Rise ♪ ♪ The true north strong and free ♪ ♪ From far ♪ ♪ Oh, Canada ♪ ♪ We stand on guard ♪ ♪ Keep a closer ♪ ♪ We stand on guard ♪ ♪ We stand on guard ♪ Okay, I’ll now move to the disclosures of pure interest.

[21:35] Councilor Van Mierbergen. Thank you, Mayor. I’d like to state a linear interest on the eight report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, specifically point two on the Council agenda, which is 2.1 from the report, dealing with childcare as my wife operates her own childcare. Others, seeing none, there’ll be a by-law associated with that too, Councilor, so we’ll make sure that’s pulled separately at the end.

[22:18] And I’ll just remind colleagues, if you’re at the course of the meeting, you’d like a by-law pulled separately. If you could just indicate that to the clerks, we can start the preparation of that ahead of time rather than wait and do that at the end of the meeting. Any other disclosures of pure interest? No, then we’ll move on to recognitions. I have no recognitions for today. I don’t know if any Council members do, they didn’t indicate to me, okay? No, we’ll move past that. Review of confidential matters to be considered in public, there are none. We have two items for Council in closed session, and we’ll look to move into closed session now, look for motion by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Hillier.

[22:55] Any discussion on closed session? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Mr. Stevenson, thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, colleagues, we’ll be moving to committee room five, and so we’ll do that now. Okay, thank you, please be seated.

[31:26] That concludes our Council in closed session. We’re on to confirmation and signing of the previous minutes. We have the minutes from the meeting of April 22nd, 2025. I’ll look for a mover and seconder. Councillor Cuddy moved, seconded by Councillor Van Merebergen. Any discussion on the minutes? All right, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Presenter vote, motion carries 14 to zero.

[32:08] Okay, communications and petitions. There are a few of them. They can all be referred to different parts of the agenda. So I’ll look to someone to make a motion to do that. Councillor Ferrera, seconded by Councillor Van Merebergen. Any discussion on the referral of those items? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Trussell, you can also vote verbally if you’d like.

[32:50] ‘Cause in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. The motion is to which notice is given. There are none. We’re on to the report section of the agenda. First report is the eighth report of the Community and Protective Services Committee. I’ll just note for the chair that Councillor Van Merebergen requires number two, be separate, and I’ll let you poll for others. Thank you, Mayor.

[33:24] Please, through you present the eighth report of the Community and Protective Services Committee. I have two poll items. That’s 2.1 childcare in early years, master funding agreement, and then two point, or sorry, item five, 2.2, whole community system response, Q1 2025 quarterly report. I would move one, three, four, six, and seven. All right, would anybody like anything else dealt with separately? Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I’d like four separately. Okay, so that leaves one, three, six, and seven.

[33:58] Everybody okay with that, sir? Okay, you’re willing to move that then, Chair? Yes, ma’am. Okay, so that’s on the floor. Any discussion on one, three, six, and seven? All right, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. I thought six was pulled separately. Oh, well, thank you, I apologize. I thought I heard six pulled separately. I had asked for four, five, six. Okay. - Separate. We haven’t opened the vote, so we can do that. So that means one, three, and seven are left.

[34:33] Everybody sure, one, three, and seven? Thank you, Mayor. - Together? Okay, then, Chair’s willing to move that. Any discussion on those? Okay, still none, we’ll open that for voting. Close on the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. I will put item two, 2.1, child care in early years, master of funding agreement on the floor.

[35:10] Okay, that’s on the floor. Is there any discussion on this one? No? Okay, then we’ll open that for voting. Close on the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. One, we’re curious, though. Go ahead, Chair. Thank you, Mayor. That leaves us with item four. That’s 2.4, program changes. The Ontario renovates program as it relates to bill, or at number 157. Okay, that’s on the floor, any discussion?

[35:44] Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I made my points on this one at committee. It’s not that I’m opposed to the program, but when I compared it to other cities, the income level is quite high here. And I did see that, I appreciated the information from staff showing that there weren’t a lot of people with high income levels that were applying. But I’m uncomfortable with a program of a half a million dollars could potentially just serve 20 households when we have such a great need. I would prefer to see this program changed a little bit to lower the income threshold and also to limit what people can apply for.

[36:22] Some other cities make it structural or code enforcement such that it allows them to stay in their home versus new windows for to reduce hydro bills or that kind of thing. So I won’t be supporting. Okay, another discussion on this. Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. President vote, motion carries 14 to one.

[36:57] You mayor, that leaves us with the next item. That’s item five, 2.2 for the report. All of community system response, Q1 2025 quarterly report. All right, I will look for speakers on this. I’d Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I circulated amendment just prior to council. It’s just a small one that adds in the online reports and the policies onto our dashboard. I can read it out. So it’s in part B. Yes, please. Please do, if it wasn’t on the added agenda, reading it out is good for the public who didn’t hear it.

[37:33] Yep, so in part B, there’s just an addition after the dashboard that says the online dashboard, which would include detailed reports on homelessness in the city and the city’s approved policies in a format similar to that used. Actually, it says by the city of Hamilton, but I thought it was coming with the city of Simco per the deputy city manager’s comment for the information of both council and the public. So the intention was just to have reports and policies added to the dashboard. Okay, I need to look for a seconder for that.

[38:11] Councilor Hillier is willing to second. Okay, so that’s on the floor for discussion moved and seconded. We’ll get that up on the screen. I think it’s up now and I’ll look for debate. Did you wanna do your— Sure, I’ll just explain that in looking around at what other cities are doing and I shared some of them, Hamilton has a nine page report weekly on encampments. I’m not asking for that. They do a 10 page monthly report. Again, not asking for that, but looking for something to be included in this dashboard that would provide weekly updates or reports for council and for the public.

[38:45] The same, the city of Hamilton has all of their policies online, which I said in the letter that I attached to the agenda. I think it would be really great. I get a lot of questions about why people have been restricted from certain agencies, what some of the rules are there, and it would be great to have a resource to refer them to as well as agencies from other cities or people who have started up new agencies who might like to come in and support us in this crisis, that they could look and see how we operate, what the policies are and possibly be able to participate in the future.

[39:23] So it was just a small tweak to say as we, there’s nothing locked in. It’s a request that when they’re building the dashboard that they consider how we can incorporate reports of a whatever frequency and our current policies. Other speakers, seeing none. Councilor Troso and Councilor Preble. I’d be happy to accept an amendment to clarify what we’re asking staff to do, but I don’t really understand the scope of what the additional information is.

[40:04] And I know that a lot of additional information was put in our packet. I would have appreciated sort of clearer language here. Detailed reports on homelessness in the city and city’s approved policies in a format similar to now you’re referring to something extrinsic. I would need a little bit more clarity on this. And I’d ask the chair, maybe he could clarify too, but I’m not happy with this language. So unless this is cleaned up a little bit, I probably would vote no unless somebody can explain what this means.

[40:44] Thank you. Okay, so I don’t want to allow cross debate on this, but I’ll go to Councillor Stevenson for just the clarification piece for the council. If you’re willing to respond to him then I can go to our staff too.

[41:16] If you’ve had discussions with them, they could also clarify, so. Yeah, thank you, I’m happy to. I did run this past staff in the clerk’s office. And the idea was to leave it vague and see what staff come back with and not be too specific in the direction, but to just point that something to have reports and policies in addition to the dashboard was something that was being requested. So it was non-specific on purpose to see what staff have internally that they might be able to post or easily create.

[41:54] I’ll look to other speakers. Councillor Ferrer, go ahead. Thank you Mayor. I just had a chance to review this about 30 minutes ago. So I do have some questions I’d like to ask for staff. So from what I see, looks like the amendment here is to, for the Q2 of 2025, once we get that report back for the dashboard, to overview the content and rollout of the plan itself, is that the first part, just kind of looking at the Councillors that you just, I’m not, I don’t want to do a cross-state, it just give me a thumbs up at the front of it.

[42:29] Okay. And then I’m also seeing to include detail reports and approved policies. So I see that too. So I just want to go to staff. From what I understand, I do know that our policies are online and some of the reports we’d be able to find in the agendas and meeting section on the city website. So I just wanted to go to staff and see if they can speak to that and maybe clarify how if we can plug those in together. Go ahead, Mr. Dickens. Thank you and through you, your worship.

[43:03] Just an alteration while I have the microphone, it would be the County of Simcoe, not City of Simcoe, as far as the dashboard, the dashboards envisioned like other communities to be very numbers and data-driven. In conversations with our policy and research folks under Ms. Smith’s area, they would not envision including policies and reports under a dashboard that’s supposed to be more living, breathing, more dynamic. And then conversations with the communications department, they’ve indicated we already have on the city website, a council policies link.

[43:42] We also have policies and reports related to a whole of community on our city website under a health and homelessness. And we also have our housing stability action plan listed on our website as well. Given homelessness policies or council policies in general, tend not to change too fluidly unless there’s a council policy review process which is happening shortly through committee. Putting static reports or static policies on a dashboard may not be a good fit.

[44:16] We could certainly provide links to other parts of the city website, however. Thank you, Mayor, thank you for that answer. I do want to see the dashboard be a little focused on just the data and the stats themselves. I do see what the council is asking for and I do like the suggestion of maybe links to other areas in the city website that we could maybe refer for policies and reports. I do like that idea. I wouldn’t want to support this motion as it is now because I don’t want to, I guess, just put too much information in there.

[44:56] I do want the dashboard to focus on just the stats and the details and the data. But I’m just going back to staff. Would you need a motion to plug in those links to refer to the other areas of the city website for policies or reports? Go ahead, Mr. Dickens. What I may suggest through you, your worship, is that you’ll see, yes, we can provide hyperlinks. We don’t need direction to do that. We’ll link in all of the work that we do. And some of those links will be to Mr. Feldberg’s area, Mr. May, there’s this area around road maps and to affordable housing, things like that.

[45:36] So it gives an overall picture. And I think the report back that we have to do in Q2 is going to give you that scope and that rollout timeline which you’ll be able to then see as part of the scope work that you’re about to direct us to go to do. We can reflect back in the scope what we will hyperlink and what we want. Yeah, and for the Councilor, like you could also, we’re on an amendment. You could also just amend it to say, and the city’s approved policies slash or links to them. It would give staff flexibility to come back.

[46:11] It’s still coming back to committee for discussion, but if you’re looking to make a change, you could just move that as an amendment. We could probably deal with that relatively quickly. Thank you, Mayor. I think that’s a good suggestion. So I would, if it’s a friendly amendment, I would strike out after approved policies and any amendment from there. So that’s different. Saying if you’re just looking for links, the option of the policies being posted or links to them in the same spot, you could just say, and the city’s approved policies kind of slash or links to them comma in a format similar to that used by like the rest can stay.

[46:52] Okay, that would be fine. I just don’t want to have the redundancy of work, but I do want to have those likes. I do think the Councilor’s onto something for that. I just don’t want staff to do extra work what they’ve done already. So I would make an amendment to read exactly what she just read. Yeah, and Councilor Stevens is willing to second that. So seem, they can’t be friendly, we’re at council. So we just, we actually have to go through the motion. So that is the amendment that Councilor Farr is putting on. Councilor Stevenson willing to second it. Oh, second. And I think everybody understands what it is. Do we need any debate on this?

[47:24] No, okay. We’re going to open the amendment to the amendment for voting, which is our staff. And then we’ll get back to the amendment after the, it’s been changed. Okay, that’s up for voting now.

[48:05] This is on the amendment to the amendment. Wasn’t the vote motion carries 15 to zero? Okay, so now we’re back to the amendment, which includes the change to it. There’s no amendment of the amendment, it’s just the amendment with the change. So that’ll be reflected in the system and we can continue debate on that. Maybe we’re done. So if we’re done, oh, no, wait, Councilor Brad, Councilor Pribble next, and then I’ll end that.

[48:39] Thank you actually, Mr. de Kinsol. I answered so much questions, but I was just going to say, I do like both proposals. They went straight up for both proposals, what Hamilton and County of Simcoe, what they do. But again, I don’t want to tie only to these two. So if the staff is aware of some other ones, let’s learn from the best. And if there are certain parts from other cities, please don’t just limit yourself to this county and to this city. And when we discussed it, when I discussed it last week with the staff, I think potential this also could be incorporated, these links, hyperlinks into the drop downs to let me discuss the tables, et cetera.

[49:13] I see do not from Mr. de Kinsol. I’m not going to take any more time. Thank you. Thanks, Councilor Raman. Thank you. We’re just on the main motion now. We’re on Councilor Stevens amendment, which now includes the link piece. I’ll wait till I’m in motion. Okay. Anybody else on Councilor Stevenson’s amendment, which, yes, Councilor Palosa. Thank you. Personally, I was waiting for a community to see what staff came back with. I appreciate the research, a lot to process more of a data dump from all the different municipalities, especially looking not to create more work for staff and not knowing how the different areas can flow into a certain report.

[49:57] So just being really mindful of not being too prescriptive of how we want that to look, not knowing how the metrics behind the scenes will flow into certain systems. Any other speakers? Okay, seeing none. So this is the amendment as it was changed to add the hyperlinks piece. And we’ll open that for voting. Present vote motion carries 14 to one.

[50:40] Okay, now I need to move her for the as amended motion. You’re willing to do that, Councilor Frayer? Okay, seconded by Councilor Hillier. So this is the as amended full main motion now. And I’ll open the speakers list. I have Councilor Robin first. Thank you. I’m wondering if you can call these separately. And I just want to speak to A. So you want A and B separately? C is the staff report B received?

[51:13] Can C be attached to something? So we can make that a little more efficient? Absolutely. Which one do you want it attached to? Do you hear? So we’ll do A and then we’ll do B and C when we vote. But we’ll just debate the whole thing. So go ahead. Thank you. And I just wanted to speak to A. So I won’t be supporting just continuing the whole of community system response quarterly reports at this time. I personally find it very helpful to receive this information. I think the community expects that we will be having these conversations on a quarterly basis around some of the directions that are undertaken by the whole of community, but also how we as council have a role to play within those discussions.

[51:57] So I won’t be supporting that portion of the report. I think that we can receive this communication back and the content that’s in this new dashboard that we’ll be receiving. And I think that the dashboard could actually add a lot of value to the conversations that we could have at committee. And for that reason, I’m asking my colleagues not to support the discontinuation. Okay, and again, we’ll vote on A separate from B and C. So we’ll continue to debate on the whole as amended motion, anyone else?

[52:34] Yeah, Councillor Stevenson on the as amended motion. Yeah, thank you. So I’m not going to be supporting A either. I do agree that the public does expect us to check in and talk about the crisis in our city and what we’re doing to address it on at least a quarterly basis. So I’m not going to be supporting A. And the idea of replacing it with the dashboard, I do think the dashboard is a value add and I’m looking forward to having that as well. But we do get to talk about the numbers that we have and making sure that the numbers mean something to the public and to council.

[53:11] Because when we have a report that says there’s 90 people living unsheltered and we spoke about it at committee and that it’s not really 90 people. It’s 90 who haven’t accessed services in a certain amount of time, but how many people are out there, even as a ballpark, is really important. And the estimate that staff gave at committee was somewhere between 90 and 600. But I am repeatedly out with social service agencies on panel discussions for documentary films and the like where they are saying there are 2000.

[53:45] And I, you know, rebut that and say, we’ve asked city staff and they say it’s not 2000. But we’ve got agencies within our whole of community system response saying that our numbers aren’t accurate. And so one of the things I’d like to see come out of this dashboard is agreed upon numbers within reason, you know what I mean? Like that we’re speaking with one voice to the public and I’m not in the position of, you know, trying to defend these numbers. The other issue when we issue reports that say there’s 90 people living unsheltered is we just spent 1.3 million on support services.

[54:24] And then we get emails from the public saying, you seem to be, you know, it seems like a lot of services for 90 people. So I’m hoping through the dashboard and continued quarterly reports, we can have a bit more clarity to give the public. And I would like to see more information. You know, the Hamilton was quite eye opening to see nine page reports weekly in a very timely basis and 10 page monthly reports. Like I said, I don’t know that we need that kind of detail, but to not to have numbers between 90 and 600 and then what would be on the dashboard?

[55:01] 90, would it be the 600? It’ll be an interesting conversation when it comes forward in Q2 2025. In the meantime, I hope council doesn’t support canceling the quarterly reports. Sorry, Mr. Dickens, you had some context to that. Absolutely Your Worship. I’m happy to provide some clarification. The numbers that are being used, the city of London undertakes annually as a requirement to do a point in time count. Our most recent point in time count identified to 315 people living unsheltered.

[55:35] The number 2000, which it is less than 2000, it’s not a far crack from 2000, but less than 2000 people are on our by name list. So the councilor may be misconstruing or misrepresenting the figures that were getting false information, but there’s close to, it’s less than 2000 people on our by name list, but our most recent official point in time count lists about 315 people living unsheltered. So just want to provide some clarification for any discussions. Right, sorry?

[56:08] Well, you’re saying I hadn’t misconstrued anything. I just want to clarify if I can. I don’t think that’s what Mr. Dickens was suggesting. I think he was talking about the information. That was how I took it not, I didn’t take it as something against it. Well, my point is that the agencies are misconstruing the information, not me. I’m presenting what I’ve been told through administration. Okay. So that was my point. Appreciate that, okay. I have Councilor Perbal on the list. Thank you, originally when I saw this in front of us, I wasn’t very much support of it either, but then I had a, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, I had a lengthy conversation with our staff and we talked about how things can be actually more alive, more up-to-date results quicker and through the drop-downs, et cetera, from the current proposed report.

[57:01] So I will be supporting it because actually, I believe that the reports, as we talked about, will be more beneficial to us and to Londoners as well. And if we want to schedule or if we can put it on the agenda on quarterly basis, we can, but honestly don’t see a reason why the information from what’s proposed to us would be every three months, cut-and-paste, and actually the cut-and-paste would be more outdated than the live information. So therefore, first, I wasn’t sure, but after the lengthy conversation, we had the great conversation last week.

[57:36] I will be supporting it, and then if what’s come back to us, if I don’t feel, or if we don’t feel it, it’s not sufficient, or if we need some more flexibility, more up-to-date, we can discuss it then, but right now, I will be supporting it. Thank you. I think Councillor Ferri had your hand up, and then I have Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Mayor. So I’m hoping for support for this. The current reporting structure does, as was said here, provide static snapshots quarterly, and usually they’re out of date.

[58:09] And just the environment that we’re working in is ever-dynamic, ever-changing, and I find myself having to go back to answer inquiries from constituents or any type of information going back to static reports that are outdated by the time that I provide those numbers, and I always have to give a little disclaimer saying, “This came from the last report, “and the numbers are probably different.” And usually the conversation that we’re having are clearly is a conversation. That is occurring because the numbers are different from the report, and I find it difficult to be able to provide that information. The goal for this is that up-to-date, as up-to-date as possible, to give the information, the dynamics, the flow of what we see outside.

[58:48] And usually, I would like to have a conversation that is conductive to find a solution or a resolve, and I usually find myself just kind of informing residents or constituents informing of the information that I have at hand. And I usually, you know, the conversation gets stalled there because it’s really an information session when I would actually like to have an actual discussion about what are possible things that we could do to alleviate some of the pressures that we have, or what are some of the ideas that we do to make things better?

[59:20] So the reason that this dashboard is so important is because it’s able to give that information to the fingertips of everybody who accesses the portal at any time of day when they want, ad hoc whenever they want. And usually, what I would think is with, when you have a constituent armed with that information, they come with, you know, that thought before they even engage with counsel of ideas or anything that they may come to mind before they have that conversation. So all of a sudden, we are getting ideas. We are getting information that we could then discuss there. And I do believe that would really advance the conversation much quicker than we have right now.

[59:56] So this is really kind of the main core point that we’re really trying to bring here with this dashboard. So I do hope that you support that. When it comes to reports and speaking to those items at counsel, you know, this report, we’re having it come back in Q2. There’s gonna be time for discussion on that. And I would also say that there are items that come to counsel when it comes to our health and homelessness that we can speak to these items. And that dashboard will give us that information to speak to those items too. So there’s no opportunities that are gonna be lost. It’s just a matter of getting aside from the static snapshots that we get and kind of really fitting into just the dynamics, the flow and how fast things can move on the ground.

[1:00:39] It would really give us a tool that gives us the ability to keep pace, to keep up with how things are changing, you know, when it comes to our health and homelessness. So I do hope that I can get your support for that item on the report. Okay, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. So I’m gonna start with a very simple question through you to staff. Ending the quarterly reports does not mean that if a significant change is proposed by the whole of community response, that that report would not still come to counsel, that we’re only removing the quarterly updates, not any significant changes that come forward from our whole of community response tables.

[1:01:27] Just wanna make sure the staff can confirm that. Mr. Dickens, those correct Your Worship. Thank you. So I appreciate that and I will be supporting this. I’m not gonna repeat everything that both Councilor Pribble and Councilor Ferra said. I agree with them. I’ll leave that piece to that. For me, the other piece to this is that I actually believe it’s time that we start looking at how the whole of community response is structured and whether there are different tables that need to be started to wind down, merged into other table work, reconfiguring how this looks, because we’ve received a plan.

[1:02:05] We’ve started to implement the plan. I want our staff. I want social service agencies working on that plan implementation. I’d like more of their time focused on that, rather than on table meetings, rather than on quarterly reports to us. I’d like them actually out there doing as much as doing can reasonably done and recognizing that these things all take some time. And so that’s why I’m gonna support not going forward with these quarterly reports. I do like the dashboard idea. I’m also gonna say I agree with Councilor Ferra on one thing and that’s why I didn’t ask to pull item seven on the quick communities.

[1:02:44] Because I wanna be careful on how much we’re layering on staff and how much, like how many reports they can reasonably get back to us. Frankly, within the remaining session of this term of council, I mean, we’re a year away from the election starting. So I wanna be careful that we’re getting reports back before our time here is even done. So for me, as we come up with ideas like the quick communities, I would prefer the staff have some time to investigate work on those, come back to us rather than just generating quarterly reports, which as the point has been made, are really kind of out of date snapshots in time by the time we receive them.

[1:03:24] I like the more dynamic dashboard approach. I think, and I appreciate Mr. Dickens circulating some examples from a couple of other communities. I’ve had a chance to take a look. I think it makes a lot of sense to have the data available that way. I think it’s much easier to digest, not just for us, but for the public as well. When we look at the quarterly reports that we receive, I don’t think that they’re necessarily easily digestible by the public at large. That’s just a function of the job we do, the way that the process has to be worked out, reports have to be generated to us.

[1:03:58] So I’m much more comfortable with having a more dynamic dashboard rather than static paper reports. So be supporting this very strongly. Okay, any other speakers to the overall motion? Councillor McAllister. Thank you and through the mayor, a question to staff. I know as part of the funding that was approved for outreach, there was a quest, obviously, for technology tablets. And I’m just wondering, in terms of the data collection, are we gonna be having that data fed in live through what will be collected in the field?

[1:04:45] Go ahead, Mr. Cooper. Thank you and through your worship. I appreciate the question from the Councillor. The information that is submitted by agencies we have contracts with are a requirement of our service contract and the utilize our Hypness Database, which is a cloud-based software that helps us keep track of the numbers of people experiencing homelessness in our community. Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you and through the mayor. Yeah, I mean, to what has already been said by a number of folks, I’m looking for more of a live snapshot in terms of what’s going on throughout the city.

[1:05:20] I think having that data available to Leonard Ayres will be invaluable in terms of not only for their awareness, but also guiding our decision-making. So thank you. Any other speakers? I’ll just add in reference to a comment that Deputy Mayor made as one of the individuals who sits on the SAD team. The review of the structure of SAD is actually occurring now with the idea that it would be reformulated around the lines that you mentioned with more implementation, less policy development, given policies are already been approved by Council.

[1:05:53] So I anticipate those reports will come back on what that structure looks like in the future, but certainly the SAD team is thinking along the same lines as your comments as well. Any other, oh, there were no other speakers. So open it for voting then. And well, we’re going to divide this in the way that Councilor Roman requested. So we’ll do part A first. Part A will be first and we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 11 to four.

[1:06:35] And then the remainder, which is part B and C, which C is just to receive the rest of it. We’ll open that for voting. Councillor Trozzan, yes, closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero.

[1:07:08] Okay, that concludes that item. Back to the chair. Thank you, Mayor. We have one more item to go. That’s item six or 2.5 for the report. The approval of the template contribution agreement for affordable housing projects. I’ll put that on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor. I’ll look for comments from colleagues. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I have one small amendment to AII and I’ve submitted it to the clerk just as this council started. It’s after contribution agreements that it just say for affordable housing projects.

[1:07:45] So just specifying the contribution agreement that’s part of this motion. Sorry, we’re just getting the language emailed just after one there.

[1:08:34] So I think everybody understands what the change is. I’ll look for a seconder for that. Deputy Mayor Lewis is going to second. Okay, did you wanna make some comments now? Will we get that up on the screen for you? Yeah, thank you. I just wanted the clarity on here that it’s come with the contribution agreement that we’re approving for the affordable housing. And I just wanted the clarity that it’s being, the one that is part of this motion is the one that’s being used. Deputy Mayor, you would like to speak to this as well.

[1:09:09] Go ahead. Thank you, your worship and through you. So I was willing to second this to get it on the floor ‘cause I wanna have the opportunity to ask staff a couple of questions. So through you, I just wanna go to whether it’s Ms. McNealer or Mr. Felberg to confirm that this language doesn’t pose any sort of, it’s quite technical, but that it doesn’t pose any immediate challenge to moving forward. So I’ll start with that question. Mr. Felberg. Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair. So the report before you today is really seeking approval for six contribution agreements for affordable housing.

[1:09:44] So this is not an issue at all. We should be able to move forward to execute those agreements and take the steps necessary to get the funding out to those particular providers. Thank you for that, Mr. Felberg. And through you, your worship, just a follow up to that. Because I’m cognizant as well with my role with the LMCH as well and where we were with baseline. And I know that there were a number of moving parts there. Like I’m not saying this is anyone’s particular bailiwick, but should something change?

[1:10:23] Should these contribution agreements not come forward in the way that fits our template? You would, I’m assuming through you, your worship staff would come back to council for approvals to any modifications or changes that would be needed outside the standard template. Thank you. Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair. So yes, so things that we would typically come back for would be the amount that we’re providing incentive for, the depth of affordability, the period of affordability if a proponent wanted to, didn’t want to use the wait list.

[1:10:58] If they wanted to do that, we’d come back to council and seek direction on how we take next steps moving forward. Thank you and through you, your worship. So that’s for staff. That’s all the questions I have. Just wanna say that I think it’s valuable because we have had a couple of bumps in the road where things have had to be adjusted. Again, that’s not on anyone individual. All of these projects are also different. They’re not all cut and paste carbon copies. And so hearing that if there were significant changes, staff would be coming back to us and that we have this template in place and this is not going to hold up getting the money out the door.

[1:11:39] I’m supportive of just making that technical adjustment to the recommendation just to provide some clarity. Go ahead, Mr. Councilor McAllister. Thank you and through the mayor, just for a point of clarification ‘cause I know we had a discussion committee but just hoping that conversations were had with St. Vincent de Paul in terms of their affordable housing project and we’ve been able to come to some sort of resolution or that that’s still being worked on. I just wanna make sure that’s part of this report.

[1:12:16] Yes, okay, go ahead then. Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair. Yes, absolutely, we’re providing communication and counsel that the main concern that St. Vincent de Paul was had was with the Wave List. We met with them with our colleagues in the social and health development. Point of order? Sorry, Mr. Kalberg. Are we discussing the whole report as a whole or just the amendment that’s on the floor? I was on the speaker’s list for the amendment. Yeah, that’s actually a good point.

[1:12:51] This is the amendment. So it seems like a great main motion question. So if you want, I’ll put you back on the speaker’s list for the main motion. That’s a good point. We’re on the amendment. Mr. Felberg, kind of keep those thoughts in your head ‘cause I’m sure you can anticipate a question when we get to the main motion. And we’re just sticking to the amendment, which is just the addition of the language. Anyone else want to speak to that? Councillor Ploza, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Overall, don’t have a concern with this. Just my interpretation, if we’re discussing approval of the template contribution agreement for affordable housing projects, that one wouldn’t have to get explicit throughout any motions through the report that you’re still talking about the report of affordable housing projects.

[1:13:38] Is this anticipate to be the new norm going forward? I guess through staff that would you find this helpful in any motion that you brought for DREK staff that it would tie in the title of each report into a motion, this feels like wordsmithing on the floor of tying stuff back into the report and just looking to see if this can come standard practice and that’s just what we can expect at each committee and council meeting. Well, I don’t think the staff would come in on the second part of your comments, but I think on the first part about if this is helpful, clear.

[1:14:12] Okay, I don’t have any comments on that. So you’ve made comments and you can continue if you like. Yeah, thank you. When I receive a staff report, I always assume if we’re talking about affordable housing that throughout the report and the motions, we’re talking about affordable housing. So that’s more my concern of where we go with all these changes through it and. Okay, Councillor Ferrera. Thank you, Mayor. I’m not gonna take too long ‘cause Council Palazzo kind of touched on some of my points. I do hear that staff saying they don’t see any issues with this and I can see that the title itself does say affordable housing projects.

[1:14:46] And in the motion, the, I guess preamble into the motion does say recommendation to the deputy city manager and community growth, the following actions be taken with respect to et cetera, et cetera. And then it ends with the approval of the template contribution agreement for affordable housing projects. So we do have it explicitly mentioned in the motion as it stands right now. So I’ll leave my comments there, but it is in the motion from the recommendation from committee. Any other speakers?

[1:15:24] Okay, seeing none, then we’re opening the vote on the amendment. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to three. Okay, I need a mover for the as amended motion. Councillor Ferra and seconded by Councillor Cuddy. All right, so this is everything with the amendment in it. Any discussion on that?

[1:15:57] Councillor McAllister. Thank you. Through the Mayor, apologies, repeating the same question, Mr. Filbert. Go ahead, Mr. Filbert. Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair. So yes, we have met with St. Vincent de Paul. We’ve had a conversation through our social and health development team about how to align the wait list. One of the things we will be working with St. Vincent de Paul to do is they have a wait list of about 4,000 people. Right now, we’re gonna look to align that to our own wait lists and see where there’s overlap, which is something we’re seeing very frequently when we’re working in this space and working with wait lists.

[1:16:32] So shouldn’t be any concerns and it seems that they are quite receptive to move forward with this and we’ll be able to get that housing done. Okay, thanks. Any others? speakers? Councillor Stevenson. Thank you through you to staff on AII where it says right below approving the template, we authorize the deputy city manager or they’re designated to approve amendments to the contribution agreement. I’m not wanting to support that and I’m just wondering through you to staff if there’s any reason why we really need to have that in there.

[1:17:07] Go ahead, Mr. Melbourne. Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair. So a lot of the work that we’ve done on delegations, very similar to the work that we’ve done with groups like Vision Soho. We’re looking to create that administrative efficiency so that we can respond to different elements of the development process. There’s a number of agreements that come up from other organizations like CMHC who we do have to apply and if we were to need to take every report and every agreement back to council, it could be a four to six week wait before we can actually execute some of these agreements and get some of that work and get the projects moving.

[1:17:44] So the delegation really gives us that flexibility to make those changes on the fly. We have direction from you on the big picture items, like the wait list, like the depth of affordability and we work with our legal department as well to ensure that we’re not overstepping civic administration and they provide us guidance on when we need to bring things back to council. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you through you to staff. Could I just have a couple of examples of what amendments would be that you would see as covered under II? Mr. Felberg, I don’t know if you have that available right now, but if you can’t give an example, go ahead.

[1:18:21] Sure, so those are some of those things that I talked about before when the deputy mayor asked. So it’d be things like the wait list, if a proponent wasn’t going to take folks off the wait list, could be the depth of affordability. So more than 80%, like a 90% AMR, it could be the period of affordability. So currently we look for a 25 year period for our contribution agreements. And it could also be the type of incentive that we’re providing currently is forgivable loan. If somebody wanted a grant, we would want to come back to get direction from council on things like that.

[1:18:55] Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, so it wouldn’t include a switch to the highly supportive housing contribution agreement. Mr. Felberg. Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair. So in discussion with our legal department, that is part of the delegation. So we would be able to add that highly supportive component to the affordable housing contribution agreement. If council would prefer to be able to have a chance to look at that agreement, we’re happy to bring that back as an amendment at a future community and protective services meeting and let you make a decision on that in the future.

[1:19:38] Councilor Stevenson. Understand the issues that we’re facing at 122 baseline and understanding that there are significant issues and concerns surrounding the two highly supportive housing buildings that we have right now. For us to say to our communities that we’ve approved a template on affordable housing that could be through delegated authority converted to highly supportive housing for those with high acuity, severe mental health and addictions.

[1:20:17] I think is something that the public would want their councilors to have a say in prior to that switch. So there gets to be a way of allowing staff to make minor changes, but not major amendments like that, that regardless of legal advice that the public would consider to be a major amendment. So the reason I changed III was to be sure that it was the affordable housing component which would not, or contribution agreement, which would not prohibit it to be highly supportive housing but that it would not be that agreement where it’s locked into our highly supportive housing plan.

[1:20:58] So through you to staff, are we better to vote? No, that’s not the right question. Could we put an amend, how does staff feel about an amendment on here that says tenancy profiles and highly supportive housing would be excluded from this amendment? So I don’t think asking staff how they feel about something is an appropriate way to go, but you could ask them that possible to do that.

[1:21:46] Well, anything’s possible, right? So I’m, but I’m asking would do they see that as a significant issue or if I make that amendment where I say any changes to tenancy profiles or the addition of highly supportive or supportive housing of any kind is not included in II. Is that problematic? Mr. Falber, go ahead and take a shot at it if you like. Thank you, and through you, Mr. Chair.

[1:22:22] So in the case of St. Vincent DePaul, for example, the wait list is exactly what the proponents are looking for a bit of, they’re looking for support from the municipality, from the service manager, as us managing that list, they want to be able to influence that in order to create the population or the community that they’re supporting in their buildings. So the type of building that the TMHA is providing, it is providing support, it is providing a depth of affordability, the model in which they use their currently repurposing funding from different parts of their other organization and to support that.

[1:23:02] So how we move forward with that, it’s really something that the proponent should be able to make a decision on and move forward with on their own and with our support taking from the wait list. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I’m gonna move an amendment that says at the end of I-I, not including changes to tenancy profile or supportive or highly supportive supports. Is there a seconder for that?

[1:23:38] Okay, Councillor Ramen, seconding it. All right, so that’s on the floor for discussion. Go ahead and start your debate, Councillor Stevenson. This, the highly supportive housing that we know the city needs, how it’s being operated and the focus of the harm reduction model, the allowing people to do drugs in their room, the not encouraging or requiring recovery in any way, we get to evaluate it.

[1:24:13] It’s coming through the audit, it’ll be done that way, but we also get to, we said that we would evaluate and course correct where required. And I really think that to allow delegated authority to apply a highly supportive housing plan that has not yet been evaluated by a third party. It’s been evaluated by the agency that runs it. I think we need public input on this. I think we need to have consideration. And so all I’m asking for here is that we just not allow that to be delegated, that it comes through to council.

[1:24:47] And to say that it takes four to six weeks, we saw what happened with CCLC. We were able to do emergency meetings and get that approved and ensure that they didn’t miss out on that funding and the housing that we desperately need. So it’s possible to do it. I think that this is something that impacts neighborhoods to a strong degree and it’s something that they would want to be public and not for us to find out in the manner in which we did 122 baseline, which is when there are problems or even longer when there’s an audit done of it. So I’m asking that all this is doing is saying that council and the public get to be aware of changes to the tenancy profile and the supportive and highly supportive housing.

[1:25:32] That’s all that this does. Other speakers? Oh, Councillor Ferris or I had John list, go ahead. Thank you Mayor. You had me for the other, before the amendment, but I do want to speak to this. So thank you. For an item like this, there was a lot of work that went behind the scenes with this and I wouldn’t be comfortable making a big decision. This is a big decision at the council chambers right now. I think that any discussion like this needs to be thoroughly had and we’re not going to be able to have it right now, especially if we don’t have any reports to inform myself.

[1:26:06] I do want to go to staff about the evaluation for highly supportive housing and potential agencies or who makes that evaluation. Go ahead. Through you, Mr. Chair. So I’m wondering if we could potentially get some clarification on exactly what it is from the council or the 10 profile that they’re looking to achieve. And then I’m wondering if maybe Mr. Dickens might be able to help provide a little clarity on the tenant selection process.

[1:26:39] It might be something that we should, as you said, expand a little bit more on. Sorry, Mr. Felberg’s looking for some support for you, Mr. Dickens on that. Through you, your worship, yes. The clarification on defining tenant profile would be helpful, I think, in this situation. Often the funding source, the funder, drives the tenant profile. So for CMHC, the Canadian Mortgage Housing Corporation, or through the National Housing Strategy or through provincial dollars, it often comes with requirements on a tenant profile and a mix of tenants, which include people of indigenous background, people of color, people with mental health and addictions, and those that are homeless.

[1:27:28] So if those are the requirements of the funders, we would just want to understand where there is alignment or misalignment with council direction. It could put us at odds with receiving the funding. Thank you, Farrah. Thank you, Mayor. And that’s what I’m worried about. That point and other points too. I just, for an item like this, this, I would not be supporting this right now. We would need definitely a more thorough conversation. We would need information back. I am understanding that staff, you’re limited on your resources as it is, and I know you put a lot of work into this template contribution agreement.

[1:28:09] And you were looking to streamline things and kind of move a little bit faster and provide the flexibility. I do see this as a counter to that. So I wouldn’t be supportive of this at the moment. I have Councillor Trostanax. Thank you very much and to the chair very briefly. I want to agree with Councillor Barrera. We are just really doing committee work here.

[1:28:43] There’s nothing in this template that we didn’t see at committee. And I just think that once again, here we are at council, trying to put amendments on the floor that are not based on changed information, but are based on, I’m not going to try to second guess the motivations for why people want to do this. I am not willing to risk one bit, anything changing that could delay this project. So I am satisfied with this template now. And Councillor McAllister raised a very good point.

[1:29:21] There was a serious point raised at committee that was dealt with. So I’m not going to support any more amendments. And I would like to urge my colleagues to do committee work at committees. Thank you. Other speakers, go ahead Councillor Plaza. Thank you. I will not be supporting this amendment reading from the city’s website. It speaks to supportive housing and such partnerships we have out there already, which would include brain injury supports, physical disability, autism spectrum disorders, different populations of the adult population, accessibility, wheelchair units.

[1:30:08] A lot of these people are then classified under needing help with supports. So I can’t support this not knowing who we’re going to inherently eliminate opportunities for service who need it within our community. Other speakers, go ahead Deputy Mayor Lewis and then Councillor McAllister. Thank you, Your Worship. So through you, question the staff. We have an affordable housing agreement template, but we also do have a highly supportive housing template.

[1:30:42] Is that correct? Through you Mr. Chair, yes, we do have a highly supportive housing template, which was the plan was approved last spring, I believe in March of 2024, or yeah, 24. And then we also have our highly supportive housing CIP, which has a template agreement as well attached to that program. Thank you, Mr. Felberg and like you, I still think 2020-04 was just last year and it’s 2024. So the fact that we have two templates, I will say makes me inclined to support this, because I do think that a switch from affordable housing, which can include people with disabilities, a number of the categories that Councillor Close just spoke to, could be simply affordable housing.

[1:31:41] In some cases, they would be supportive housing, but there is definitely, I think, in fairness to the residents of our community, a switch from affordable housing, which most folks think of as RGI, 80% AMR, those sorts of things, to a highly supportive housing is fairly significant change. I will say I struggle a little bit more with the tenancy profiles piece, because I think that the funders probably would be working with us on the tenancy piece anyway, and we heard that with respect to the St. Vincent de Paul project, which is a great project that’s coming forward.

[1:32:31] But I am inclined to think that if we’re going to switch from one template to another, that should be a direction from Council. So I’m gonna listen to what colleagues have to say, but I’m going to be leaning towards supporting this, although I’m not entirely sure, because the tenancy profiles, I guess I’m gonna ask staff for a bit of clarification here. We have our own tenancy prioritization with respect to the chronological wait list and urgent needs, and we switched that.

[1:33:09] I think we switched that in 2024 at some point too, but maybe it was fall of 2023 now. It’s, but regardless, we did make a switch, and we prioritize more off the chronological list. So I just wonder if staff can clarify, when we’re in the reference to tenancy profiles here, would we be interpreting that more as a change to the prioritization list, chronological versus urgent, or would we be looking at this more specifically around things like a change from seniors to women fleeing domestic violence or at risk youth, or as we see at YOU, how would tenancy profile changes in this amendment be interpreted by staff?

[1:34:06] Coming through your worship, I appreciate the question from the Deputy Mayor. I’ll take a step back. So that two to eight ratio that counts approved in the fall of 2023 is specific to the Housing Services Act and the legislative units that the city manages that were devolved as part of devolution from the province. The agreements that we’re signing with new providers or new nonprofit housing providers are more specific to their needs and their priorities in community, if that makes sense. So what we’re looking to is they will identify eligibility criteria, right?

[1:34:41] And so whether that’s single, senior women, it could be women fleeing violence, it could be veterans, it could be newcomers. We work within their eligibility requirements to then match from our broader wait list, which is also the social housing wait list. We do give folks an opportunity to come off that wait list if they get housed through this process. But it is more of that non-legislated type process. And so it gives us a little more flexibility to work with providers to ensure that the community that they’re looking to create in their building is meeting their needs, but also addressing a very significant need in our community.

[1:35:16] So through you, your worship, just a quick follow up to that. Sorry to keep you on this one for a little bit, Mr. Cooper, but I just wanna, I appreciate that answer ‘cause it was very helpful. I kind of wanna ask though, and I’m trying to figure out how to frame this for you, if we were dealing with a situation where, and I’m going to, with respect, ‘cause I know one of our friends from St. Vincent de Paul’s here, I’m just using this as a, for example, I’m not suggesting, Mr. McKenzie, that you’re gonna be changing your tendency, but if we, for example, had St. Vincent de Paul come back and say, we started with senior women as our target, but now we’ve decided we’re gonna switch to persons with disabilities.

[1:36:04] Part of that would have been thought about in terms of their physical build in the first place and might change some of their, their pro forma in terms of making unit accessible, you know, elevators, door sizes, all of those things, I would think. So I guess what I’m asking in terms of our, our experiences staff, is there frequently a request to change the tendency profile, or is that often built into the pro forma that they’re creating before they’ve come forward to meet with us?

[1:36:39] And if that’s not you, Mr. Cooper, if that’s Mr. Felberg’s area more than whoever can answer that for me. Mr. Felberg. Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair. So yes, absolutely the, depending on the type of building, the type of construction that they, the proponent will be undertaking, they will be making certain design changes and addressing some design features in order to accommodate the population that they are looking to look into support. If it were a highly supportive housing building, the proponent might be looking to do things, a different type of drywall, they might be looking to ensure that there’s no carpet in hallways, different things like that in order to support the potential, any issues that they may have from a property management perspective.

[1:37:26] In this case, I think the tendency profile really is the thing there that is the challenge for us in the resolution, the highly supportive housing, absolutely that’s something we can come back and have a conversation with Council on. But if we include that tendency profile in this resolution, that does limit our ability to work with groups like St. Vincent DePaul or Cross Cultural Learning Center, we’re providing a very different type of property and a very different type of mix to what I think is being discussed here today. Go ahead.

[1:38:01] Okay, so I’m now thoughtful of our Council policies and procedures by-law and the levels of inception we can go to on amendments to amendments and I think we’re at the depth now. Chair, I just want you to confirm that. No, we’re not. Also, I’m gonna tell Council if this passes, we’re gonna have to refer it. We’re not gonna be prepared to change the by-law today. This refers to multiple sections of the by-law, the delegation piece. The clerk is not prepared to make those changes on the fly based on their consultation with legal.

[1:38:35] So this is something that should happen at committee or our Councils need to work with staff to have an alternate by-law prepared based on this, much like happens with planning committee, otherwise it gets referred back. So if this passes, we’re deferring it back because we’re not gonna try to pass a by-law on the fly with bad language tonight or language that we’re not 100% confident about. So I don’t know where you’re going with the amendments, but I’m just gonna clarify for people at the end of all these amendments, there’s probably gonna need to be a motion to refer this back to committee to have the by-law written so that it is, these are agreements. So it has to be written properly. Clerks and legal have to sign off on it to make sure that they are good and we just can’t do that on the fly at a meeting like this.

[1:39:12] So you can go ahead and make amendments ‘cause this is just one level of amendment right now. You can make an amendment to the amendment. But if any amendments passed that are different from the by-law, we’re gonna have to send that back or referral, okay, so go ahead. Okay, so with that response, I need to ask you a follow-up procedural question. This is right now authorizing the deputy city manager, housing and community growth, or they’re written designate to approve amendments to the contribution agreement for affordable housing projects. Where seems to me what we’re directing here is not actually a change necessarily to the by-law, but the interpretation of delegated authority.

[1:39:56] So I’m not sure that it actually changes the by-law and I’m just looking for some guidance from the clerks. Yes, in the by-law, it specifically lists the delegated authority clauses, which would need to be changed. Those clauses in the overcover of the by-law specifically lists sections of the contribution agreement that outline the permissions that staff have and when they can do things. So absolutely it changes the by-law, it changes multiple parts of the by-law. Okay, thank you for the clarification there. Now once again, I’m gonna seek your indulgence. I don’t know if the council is willing to withdraw the tenancy profile selection and if there would be consensus for that or whether I need to make an amendment.

[1:40:32] I’m willing to amend it to delete the tenancy profiles, but if there’s simple consensus, I’d rather not go through an amendment to an amendment. Just make the amendment. I hear people whispering about whether or not they wanna do that. So if you wanna make an amendment, make an amendment. Okay, then I’m going to amend the amendment to delete the language of any changes to the tenancy profiles.

[1:41:10] And if that’s successful, then it would just say with, sorry, housing projects with the exception of supportive to highly supportive housing. Okay, that’s moved and seconded. Any discussion on deleting the tenancy profiles piece from the amendment? Go ahead, Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, I’m gonna support this and then I’m gonna vote against the entire thing which I’ll provide those reasons for after. Okay, anyone else? Okay, so let’s move, this is the, we’re gonna open the vote on the deletion of the tenancy profiles piece from the amendment.

[1:41:48] Open that for voting. Motion carries 14 to one.

[1:42:21] Okay, now I will caution colleagues on the side talk. I can hear it too, please. Well, we’re in the middle of a vote, just let people vote. We don’t need to speak loudly beside each other. Okay, so now this is the— Point of order. Point of order, go ahead. Thank you, sorry, just on your conversation. It’s not that it’s just side talk, it’s actually bordering on very disrespectful conversation about what colleagues are moving during discussion and it’s very disruptive. So I didn’t hear the actual language, it’s hard for me to rule on that, but I will say to colleagues, generally as I have before, counselors get to make motions, they get to have debates.

[1:43:07] You can not like the motion, you can be against the motion. You get to stand up during your time to speak and you get to say why. You do not get to say it by leaning over to someone or saying loudly so they can hear you, why you disagree with something. That is not acceptable to quorum in the chamber. And so if I hear it, I’ll take action on it. I apologize when I’m working with the clerks, I do not always hear things particularly around that the wider ends of the horseshoes are depending on the way that people’s heads are facing. So if I miss something, I apologize for it. It’s hard for me to enforce the specific language if I don’t hear it, but I will issue that general caution because it is disrespectful, it’s distracting, and it is not the way that the process works.

[1:43:49] You get to stand up and speak, you should be speaking where the public can hear you too. I don’t mind if you have a question or something to a colleague and you can do it quietly, but not about the person speaking. For the most part, you should be paying attention to the person speaking, okay? I get that we have other things we’re doing, like if we’re trying to, like me, organize with our staff, work on amendments, know whether I have to refer it back, you’ll see me doing a lot of stuff, but generally we need to be listening to our colleagues to make sure that we’re giving them the respect to have the debate. So I appreciate the point of order, I did not hear the specific comments, but I provided that general caution.

[1:44:25] We’re on the, so I now need a mover for the, no, we’re just back to the amendment and it has one piece out of it because we don’t need it as amended. Mr. Felberg, you need to speak, I assume it’s related on something we’re changing here. Can you, yeah, go ahead. No, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the term supportive that’s in the amended resolution, that could limit our ability to provide supports for folks who might need medical, medical devices. It’s, I think what Council’s really after here is the highly supportive housing plan and the highly supportive housing plan that was approved last spring.

[1:45:05] It’s not necessarily supports that we’re providing, so that would be the only piece that it might take out of the amendment. No, so the wording there, I appreciate your information, that’s good. The wording is, as it is, that’s what was moved and now it’s been amended, so I’m not changing it myself.

[1:45:41] And we’ll continue with, so I don’t need a same mover for the amendment as it was before, same mover and seconder, and we’re back to debate on the amendment, now it’s been changed to strike out the tenancy profiles. We’ll look for speakers on this. Yes. - I wish I was sorry, but I haven’t yielded the floor since that’s what my amendment forward. Go ahead. So, appreciate Mr. Felberg’s clarification on that.

[1:46:15] This is where language does matter. It would have been with all due respect to the Council if we’d had this a little sooner, perhaps. We could have ironed out a couple of those things. However, and I don’t know if I’m out of order to make a second amendment, but I’m prepared to insert the word highly in front of the word supportive. Highly is already there. It says exception of supportive or highly supportive housing, then I just wanna go through in there, then I’m prepared to just take out supportive and just leave it as highly supportive. Okay, I need a seconder for that.

[1:46:57] Councillor Stevenson is willing to second, and discussion on removing supportive. We’ll open that for voting. Wasn’t the vote motion carries 14 to one.

[1:47:56] Now your worship through you, I need to ask. So I had another process question. If this were to pass, you’ve suggested referring it, but it would be a decided matter of Council. So are you speaking of referring the by-law to the next cycle of Council? No, I’m suggesting if you make amendments, before we pass the as amended, like if this gets amended into the clauses, the advice from the clerks and legal is they need time to go and prepare the by-law.

[1:48:29] Traditionally, we’ve referred it back to committee to have that done, so committee has a chance to actually look at the wording in the by-law to assure it aligns with what the Council’s intention was, so that we don’t end up debating it all again at Council. So by-laws can go to the next meeting of Council, but traditionally we’ve sent it back to committee to make sure that the committee has eyes on it to ensure that the language through the components of the by-laws reflect what was the intent of the Council. So this only kicks in if we make this amendment, which is why I’ve allowed the debate to continue this point, ‘cause if this gets defeated, we can easily pass it tonight, but if we don’t and we pass this amendment, that’s what triggers the concern from the clerks and legal that they need some time to actually change the components of the actual by-law before we go to that.

[1:49:10] And a referral back to committee is their preferred avenue to give them the ability to go back to colleagues given. There’s changes to check to make sure that’s okay. So if that’s the advice, I mean, we can do, we can send it right to the next Council meeting if you like, but this is what their advice is, so I’m just letting you know. Thank you, that’s satisfactory in terms of process to me. I trust both our staff and our committee chairs and yourself as Chair of Council, that should there be something that’s of an urgent nature timeline-wise that doesn’t prohibit a special meeting from being called to deal with a single item to approve a funding approval for an organization.

[1:49:49] So I will conclude my comments there by just saying, I do think that there is a significant enough difference between affordable and supportive versus highly supportive that where we are now with the language, I’m prepared to support. Okay, I have Councillor Frank and then Councillor Ferrera. Thank you and apologies if this has already been asked and answered, but I’m struggling to fall along very closely.

[1:50:23] If this passes, what does it actually do in regards to staff’s ability to delegate and what would staff then have to bring to council to make decisions on if this passes? So I’m gonna ask our staff that because their actions will go ahead, Mr. Felberg. And through you, Mr. Chair. So we would be able to enter into the agreements with four of the proponents for sure. And then the two CMHA ones, assuming that they are coming forward as highly supportive, we bring a report back to get a contribution agreement to approve for those two specifically, but we’d be able to enter into the agreements with the other four.

[1:51:03] Thank you. And then perhaps again, I’m not fully understanding it, but then what will you bring to council in the future for debate and discussion on if this passes? I don’t know, again, I don’t feel like I totally understand. Go ahead, Mr. Felberg. Through you, Mr. Chair. So we would bring back a template contribution agreement for the two CMHA properties that would include the provisions of highly supportive housing, which is very similar to what we’ve got. We’ve already approved through the highly supportive housing CIP. Thank you.

[1:51:38] And so then if this doesn’t pass, you would just execute those things. So the only thing I see this adding perhaps is time and politicization. Okay. So in my opinion, I’m not going to support this. I feel like it’s an operational decision. And I also worry it will become politicized that certain groups of people who are harder to get housed will be up to forward debate about where we want to put them in the city. We’ve had this debate at council before and I don’t particularly want to politicize those decisions. And I also want to provide highly supportive housing as quickly and efficiently as possible. I see this additional motion being red tape and I thought that’s what we’re trying to avoid.

[1:52:13] So I will not be supporting it. Councillor Ferrer. Thank you, Mayor. Councillor Frank captured it better than I could. So I won’t say too much more than that. I just wanted to ask maybe a follow-up from Councillor Frank’s questions. How many, I guess proponents or how many items we have on the table right now that are waiting for this contribution agreement to be complete and supported by council and how many may be delayed if we were to delay this? Go ahead. Through you, Mr. Chair.

[1:52:46] So all six agreements or all six proponents or all six projects would be are waiting on the contribution agreement. We are waiting for CMHC there in what’s called caretaker period at the moment through the federal election. Not sure exactly when they come out of that. It’s very similar to your lame duck process where they can’t make decisions in sign agreements. But our agreements are a key step and a key pillar and really important to have municipal endorsement of a project for CMHC to sign on to financing. Go ahead, Councillor Ferrer.

[1:53:19] Thank you, Mayor. And just to follow up to that. So they will all be delayed, which means all shovels in the ground, all spaces being open will also be delayed if we were to delay this, just clarification. I had Mr. Felberg. Through you, Mr. Chair. So the way that I’m interpreting the amendment is that four of the agreements, the St. Vincent de Paul Cross Cultural Learning Center, Warner Place, and the fourth one. And then the two would be, we’d be able to execute and take action on those ones immediately after Council approval.

[1:53:52] And then the two CMHA ones we’d bring back report to align with the highly supportive housing. And just to note, if we change it, that Council approval will come, not this meeting, but the next Council meeting, because we need to change the bylaw. Thank you, Mayor. Just I’m trying to get some clarification ‘cause I don’t have enough information. I wasn’t able to, I didn’t think this one through ‘cause it was kind of a last minute item. So that’s why mainly I won’t be supporting it. I do hear suggestions from the deputy mayor that I agree with, but I don’t have the information right now. I need an informed decision and I need discussion and I need it to go through committee.

[1:54:29] So I can’t support it at the moment ‘cause I just don’t know what I don’t know. Other speakers on this.

[1:57:01] So Councilor Stevenson, you spoke to the amendment, but the practice in the past has been, if we change the amendment, people can speak again. People don’t like that, clean it up in the procedure by-law. So I’ll go back to Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, I appreciate that. Through you to staff, my understanding is that if we, that these contribution agreements as we approve them, we will not, they will not have Council involvement. So if once, just say we don’t approve this amendment, then highly supportive housing units can be approved and they will not be coming through Council.

[1:57:42] Mr. Felberg. Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair. Yes, that’s what the delegation that we have in the agreement allows us to do. Okay, thank you. So I hate to use up my time defending myself in terms of the last minute, but understand that this report when it came to us doesn’t say these two units are gonna be highly supportive. Now, I could figure it out by reading the previous agreement where it said that there were three locations approved by the SAT of whom we don’t know who that committee is, but so we had to figure it out and then I asked where the locations are and I’m told, well, the organizations want to announce it.

[1:58:23] So I keep quiet on it and we get an emailed 20 minutes before it goes public. So my point is we’ve got, staff have come to us with, and maybe it doesn’t even matter at this point. I’m very frustrated because I have done the work on this. Since committee, I have had meetings and I’ve asked questions and I’m finding out on the floor that the amendment that I made doesn’t close the loophole. It isn’t acceptable for the public to be told that it’s affordable housing and then all of a sudden it become highly supportive housing and their elected official and the public do not have a say in that.

[1:59:03] For me, it is not politicization. It’s the involvement of politicians in very serious decisions that are happening in this city of which we are repeatedly being asked to stay out of. When it comes to this homelessness response, we’ve been asked to step aside since I got elected. So this is me saying, you know what? You’re gonna bring me our staff report that says in the previous two staff reports that it’s gonna be highly supportive housing, but we’re saying it’s affordable housing and everyone said when I made the amendment, oh, why are we doing this?

[1:59:37] It says right in it, it’s affordable housing. Well, you know what, it’s not. It’s highly supportive housing. It’s not related to this contribution agreement. So I try to obtain clarity, comments around why am I doing it? This is why I’m doing it. Because the least that we can do is come forward and say what it is, no hiding the ball. How this supportive housing is great, then own it. Bring it forward. We can sell it to the public. Everyone knows it’s needed. Avoiding it and having it happen like 122 baseline and now here is not acceptable, in my opinion.

[2:00:13] So I’m saying, regardless of what happens going forward today, we got a report that many comments were made by my colleagues about how it was so obvious it was affordable housing. Why was I adding the clarity? This is why I was adding the clarity. Because it’s not gonna be using that agreement. It’s gonna be the highly supportive agreement, but we give it away during delegated authority. So we’re asked to approve a template and the next line under we’re asked to approve and delegate the amendments to it. So what is the point of approving something that can be changed this substantially?

[2:00:49] So we can have bigger arguments about this another day. I’m asking for you for today, to say, you know what? As a council, we’re gonna say to the public, we’re gonna be upfront with you about what’s happening. And we’re not gonna say something’s affordable housing when we know it’s highly supportive housing and then say after the fact, well, you know, that’s just the way that it was. I spoke with staff, they said they would have to come back to us with the highly supportive housing agreement. That’s the way it should be. Or in the staff report, it should be clear what we’re being asked to do.

[2:01:27] That would really help these last minute amendments on the floor. Clear is kind. I want clarity around what is happening in my ward. I want to get behind it, I want to support it, but I need to know the details before I do that. So if you say no to this amendment, then you’re saying it’s okay that we thought it was affordable housing until now. And now we know it’s highly supportive housing and you consider it politicization for politicians to get involved in a major decision. So Councilor, I’m just going to correct a couple of things you said from the chair.

[2:02:03] There was, I’m not saying you said this directly, but there were some illusions that staff have done something that shifted things around. They have delegated authority. That delegated authority comes from municipal council. You are absolutely right. We can rescind any delegated authority and make those decisions ourselves. But when they have delegated authority, like they do in the entire civic administration by law, there are broad parts of this corporation that they have delegated authority from council to make decisions on so that they can run a massive organization without having council make every single minute decision.

[2:02:37] Council from time to time may say, this piece of delegated authority we want to have in our control, this other piece we’re going to delegate. That is the right thing to do. But if staff have delegated authority, which they have from municipal council in the past, they’re allowed to execute that and they’re not doing anything untoward by doing that. Again, I’m not saying that those words were used, but I want to make sure it’s absolutely clear based on the conversation we’re having that our staff are just trying to do their jobs and get spaces in the community filled whether they are affordable or supportive housing of which council has endorsed doing both.

[2:03:12] And they’re using the tools they have in their disposal and the authority they have to try to secure those spots. So we can make changes as we are to the authorization of that delegated authority. That’s not politicization. That is us deciding as a council that we are doing delegated authority is slightly different on this component of this piece, which we are absolutely allowed to do. But the delegated authority permissions in the municipality are commonplace in every municipality because we do not make every single small decision across the entire spectrum. In some cases, we don’t always make big decisions because we’ve delegated them because there’s a council approved plan and staff can afford that.

[2:03:48] But it is council’s right to pull that back and ask for decision making. And staff are simply articulating the pieces to that of which there would be a time difference in moving forward. And some councils are allowed to express their opinions on that. That’s okay. So I just wanna cool the temperature in the room for everybody and say, this is a debate we’re allowed to have. We can talk about pulling back delegated authority. That is a legitimate way to do it. And our staff will take that direction from us, but they have done nothing wrong in the way that they’ve approached trying to achieve council’s goals on both affordable housing and supportive housing in this community.

[2:04:24] So I just wanted to add that context because I don’t want a bunch of other people jumping in to rebut or respond to specific comments that are said. I just wanna set the tone to say, we are having this debate and this discussion. It’s fine, it’s legitimate. There are consequences to it. And we get to make decisions based on the information we get from our staff. So I will continue on with the discussion and councilman Callister, you’re next. Thank you through the mayor. I know I got a bump from the list a few times. I think that was the deputy mayor making all of his amendments. So thanks for letting me back on the list. I wanna take a different approach to this. I appreciate all the comms that we made, but I’m making my determination based on my own personal experience.

[2:05:03] I have the Thompson Road Support of Housing project. Wasn’t easy, I’ll be honest. I appreciate all the work that staff put into it. But I was willing to go to bat for it because I see the value in it. I really do feel like we’re unfortunately in a situation we’re almost operating at a hospital and that with housing, it’s almost like triage. And so for me, I know it was difficult. I know it’s been tough for the community at times, but these projects are of vital importance in terms of giving somewhere for someone to live, but also the supports that they need to put their life back together.

[2:05:40] I’ve seen a number of providers. I know that one’s in well, obviously. So speaking from my experience with them, they’re very responsive in terms of issues to go on. But I feel this largely is operations. And I know we’ve referenced the 122 baseline a number of times, and I point to the discussion we had at governance working group as well. And a lot of the issues I saw with 122, these are things 100% sure staff have now taken on board. The audit called it out as clear as day. Not saying it could never happen again, but I do think a lot of lessons have been learned to date.

[2:06:15] We’ve really been in a crunch in terms of housing. Some of these things have to happen in a very compressed timeframe. But I think a lot of effort has gone in to trying to correct that. I’m hoping that what staff take from this conversation too is that when these projects do come up, they engage with the counselor. I know a lot of the nonprofit housing providers also come to us. We have those conversations offline as well. But for me, I understand in terms of the delegated authority, it’s not my job to micromanage everything. I understand that this is a very tough topic, especially for folks who live in impacted areas.

[2:06:54] But I would rather have these housing projects than more people sleeping in my parks to be perfectly honest with you. If I can get people off the streets into housing with supports, 100%, I’m gonna support it. Is it going to be easy? Absolutely not. But I know staff feel that too. These projects are difficult, not only to set up, but to manage. But there are a lot of operational issues which I don’t feel as a counselor, I should be involving myself with. So in this, I will not be supporting this. I wanna go with what we originally had, and I hope that staff will take that on board and then we can continue to have those conversations.

[2:07:33] Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, your worship. And I just wanna speak to why I’m not supporting the amendment. I wanna get these projects out. I understand that we can hold up these projects. We’ll only get four instead of six. So I do not wanna get in the way. So I won’t be supporting the amendment. Other speakers. So this is on the inclusion after it’s been modified a few times of just the part with the exception of highly supportive housing to the delegated authority piece.

[2:08:11] So the other parts have been struck out. So we’re just on that. And that’s the amendment that we’re on. I’m gonna open that for voting. Closing the vote.

[2:08:44] Motion carries eight to seven. Okay. I need to move it for the as amended motion because we’re back to the main motion here. So we want some of the as amended deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Stevenson. All right. So the as amended motion now with these changes, I’ll take a speaker’s list on that. Go ahead Councillor Plaza. So thank you, Mr. Mayor, a process question. As you mentioned, it was, if it passes, the by-law needs go back to committee. So what is the proper time without cutting discussion short but being efficient with time to move a motion with this back to committee?

[2:09:21] Well, I’d say you can do that now. Make a referral now back to committee with the purpose to update the by-law to reflect the changes that council has made to this point. So eloquently put what you said and I’ll move that now as clear. Okay. So referral takes precedent. We’re on the referral. Any discussion on the referral back to committee to have the by-law rewritten with these changes? Go ahead Councillor Plaza. Thank you, just through you to staff, making sure this can come back for the next cycle.

[2:09:54] I don’t want to lose any funding windows and just not quite sure of those two that would be effective for CMHA. If we’re on that precipice of losing something. Mr. Felberg. Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair. I think the next caps is the 20th or the 21st. I think it’s actually next week. So I’ll work with the clerk to see if we can get on the added and if not, then we’ll be at the next cycle in June. Thank you, I’m sure it can make it to the agenda. Happy to say, I think that’s a good question.

[2:10:42] I’m just gonna make a comment from the chair. Staff are gonna try to get this on the added agenda. So I don’t want anybody to be surprised that it’s on the added agenda, which I know sometimes that’s not a lot of time to see it before it’s voted on, but what they’re doing here is updating the by-law based on the council direction. So I just, if anybody has a problem with that, like I would prefer to hear it now when in the debate of the referral, rather than it be anybody have a problem later that this is gonna be on the added, if they can’t make the added to let us know but they’re gonna strive for that, for speed for those agreements that we wanna proceed, okay?

[2:11:18] Councilor Plaza, are you finished? Yeah, my only other question was procedurally, if they don’t make the added, but there’s a time crunch, could a special meeting be called to deal with that one item only? Procedurally, yes. It would be the chair who would do that and then itself, okay? Councilor Ferreira, you’re next. Thank you Mayor, just really quick. It will be on the added ‘cause the agenda just came up for that CAHPS report while we were sitting at this meeting. I don’t think it comes publicly till tomorrow, but you may as the chair have a copy now.

[2:11:53] So if the case anybody goes looking forward, it will be public tomorrow around noon, I think. Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, I just wanted to say thank you to my colleagues for supporting this. I understand there’s a lot of different things going on here and I tried to honor to the fact that organizations wanna make announcements and there’s things going on. So, but I just wanna be sure that we’re clear with the public and so I really appreciate that opportunity to bring clarity here. On the referral, anyone else? Okay, so this is on the referral, which is the referral back to committee, new bylaw written, going for the added agenda.

[2:12:33] If anybody didn’t say anything, you can do it next council meeting. Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Was in the voting motion carries 15 to zero. Sir Ferreira. I believe that concludes the eighth report of the Committee on Protective Services Committee. Okay, then we’re on to the seventh report of planning and environment committee.

[2:13:12] I don’t think there’s too many things in this report. I’m gonna see if I can get through this before I look for a small break, I’ve made sure that there’s some snacks or refreshments, but we’ll let’s see if we can get through a whole other report first. Go ahead, Councilor Layman. Thank you Mayor. Please present the seventh report of the planning and environment committee. Bad request to have number four and number 12 pulled. Okay, does anybody want anything else pulled? Sorry, the clerk missed the item that you said was gonna be pulled? No, number four and number 12.

[2:13:45] No, number four and 12. Okay, so anything besides four and 12, the colleagues would like separate? If not, I’ll let you make a motion. So I’d like to move one, two, three, five through 10 and 11 and 13 to 14. Okay, one to three, five to 11, 13 and 14 is moved by the chair. Any discussion on those? Right, we’re gonna open that for voting.

[2:14:37] Was in the vote motion carries 15 to zero. Go ahead. Thank you, I’ll put item four on the floor. Right, item four is on the floor. I look for speakers, Deputy Mary Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. So this is one that we had a little bit of discussion on at committee and we were kind of winging it on the floor to get some language together around a report back from staff. Since then, I have worked with both Mr. Mathers and Ms. Chair and their teams to get some language that was acceptable to them and I have forwarded that to the clerk to put it into eScribe.

[2:15:23] So hopefully that is there for folks to refresh and see the language there. And I’d like to move that amendments. Really a housekeeping amendment that specifies what pieces of the policies are coming in the report back rather than the more general report back that we had a language from a committee. I need a seconder for that. Councillor Cuddy. Right, I should want me to read it out. Yes, please. So it’s an amendment to part B and that civic administration be directed to report back to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee with respect to the existing traffic coming policy standards through the design specification guidelines through the plans of subdivision with subdivision approvals.

[2:16:08] Sorry, and this is where the change comes with respect to the neighborhood connectors as well as related policies of the London plan and the city of London design specifications requirement manual. So it’s that as well as related policies that is just a language cleanup from committee. Okay, so that’s moved in second to any discussion on that. Go ahead, Councillor Ramen. Thank you. So just to clarify within the London plan and the design and specification requirement manual as it relates to traffic calming, what does this, what would this do?

[2:16:47] Go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. At this time, it wouldn’t do anything. We would report back and if there was a direction to change at that time, we would make those amendments. The London plan, of course, being a much more complex change than any changes to the DSRM. Go ahead. Thank you. So with respect to this letter, I was a bit confused with the direction, I shouldn’t say confused, it’s the wrong word. I was trying to ascertain what the direction was. I was hearing something different from the developer with respect to what they believed that they were being held, that the design standard and the London plan standard and the specifications that they were being held to for a new subdivision that is currently under what is the current London plan.

[2:17:39] So this is where I’m a bit confused because this amendment to me, the letter is talking about they’re being held to a standard that is not yet approved by council and they’re trying to understand why they’re being held to that standard for bike lanes and for traffic calming. My understanding from listening to the debate at planning was that there was a bit of back and forth around the traffic calming policy and I do wanna speak separately on the main motion around the bicycle lanes in this segment of my award. But I’m just wanting to understand what’s the current policy?

[2:18:19] Right now this is, if it’s just the current policy, then that’s fine. But if this is any upcoming projected amendments to the policy, I’m concerned why the developer thinks are being held to something that hasn’t been approved yet. Go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. I will start certainly. I maybe looked at my colleagues in planning in terms of the hierarchy of plans. The DSRM is not a council approved document. It is a highly technical specification book that has developed an extensive collaboration with the home builders construction and design consulting industry in London.

[2:18:56] In this particular case, the letter that came in was actually largely focused on bike lanes. It was raised in the gallery at that time that there was concerns about traffic calming, being implemented in this neighborhood at a spacing of up to about 100 meters on neighborhood connectors. I will note that staff had not actually recommended all of that traffic calming. Some of it was actually requested by the developer. But that is what is allowed under the DSRM. There is some ability for judgment and professional leeway under those specs. The London plan, it does not get to the level of making decisions about where we might put a raised intersection, where we might put a bulb out or a pedestrian crossing.

[2:19:31] It is a plan that sets the direction for the future growth and how we grow in the city. Go ahead. Thank you. Appreciate that clarification. And just to follow up, so I see this as Corlon has provided this letter, and they’re referencing what’s taking place in their plan of subdivision conversation. But this is more generally for the entirety of our traffic calming policy standards. What I’m trying to get at is what does this do for Corlon and the issue that they’ve brought forward of concern and that discussion.

[2:20:09] Go ahead. Thank you, through the chair. What that means is the conditions of draft approval that are in place right now. So the applicant has to satisfy those conditions. And we’ll work closely with the transportation division to make sure that the city is satisfied. And once they’re technically satisfied in terms of the separation of the speed cushions or whatever the nature is, then the approval authority will be satisfied. So we just need to go through that exercise and the documentation throughout, because with the approval periods now, for draft plan of subdivisions, it’s three or four years, potentially five years for some of these.

[2:20:47] So as you can appreciate, as time goes on, staffing changes. So we want to make sure we have the clear documentation. Thank you. And so just to clarify again, will industry be consulted on this? My understanding from the conversation with Corlon was there was some costs or increased costs that they would have to incur within this plan of subdivision based on the addition of more traffic calming and bike lanes that they were foreseeing an additional cost and some challenges with frontage, et cetera, based on some of the conditions that were being put in place.

[2:21:29] So I’m just wondering what kind of conversation with industry will happen around this? Well, your worship, with respect to specifically Corlon, those discussions with the developer can continue and have been continuing. There’s been a lot of negotiation with respect to the project. What’s directed here is a report on our current policies and processes. And at this point, we would not be consulting with industry about those policies and processes, unless after the time of reporting back, there are concerns raised at committee. But right now, what we’re being asked under this motion is to provide that information as to how those decisions are currently made to manage new growth.

[2:22:08] Thank you. For me, I think it would be important to hear back from industry, because if there’s an additional cost to a developer who’s putting in a subdivision, and that cost is then something that they’re going to pass on to homeowners in the potential subdivision, that to me would be a concern. I would just like to get a sense if this has that kind of impact, because that’s what the letter came in with that detail about. So I’m just trying to get some more understanding, I guess, if that’s a possible consideration, to just have some conversation with industry, just to say, what are the potential concerns around this?

[2:22:53] Or is there a way for us to work in partnership so that there isn’t an additional cost with these new developments? Go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. So the DSRM is developed and updated through a regular process that is done extensively in consultation with industry, and those conversations have happened. The idea that perhaps speed humps or painted bike lanes are a significant incremental cost is probably not entirely accurate. There are some pieces of infrastructure that can be quite expensive if you’re building off-street bike paths, for example, by whether you’re painting a sort of a curb lane for bike use or it’s a parking lane.

[2:23:29] The incremental cost to build that and for us to maintain it is extremely low. Thank you. I appreciate the feedback. Again, I’ll reiterate the developer did provide quite specific examples in their letter, stating that there were additional costs, and part of the cost structure that they talked about was loss of frontage. And I actually think that that may be something we need to have more discussion about with industry if it’s going to have an impact. In this case, they were considering you’ve got on-street parking, you’ve got a bike lane, and then you’ve got the clearance for the traffic calming.

[2:24:10] And so those things in tandem, they saw as taking away from frontage and therefore causing an impact on the price of land and housing. And so that’s where I would love to hear back from industry on. But if I don’t think we need to amend it, I think the share just provided some insight that there is some consultation that happens. So I hope that that is the case and that this doesn’t get passed along to homeowners in these areas. Thank you. Any other speakers to this? OK, this is on the amendment.

[2:24:48] So we’re going to open that for voting. Wasn’t the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0. OK, I need an as amended mover. Councillor Cuddy, this time, so someone else can stand up. Go ahead, you have to stand up if you’re moving it. Yep, you have to stand up though. All right, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’m just giving him a break. He was already standing. Worship, I’m sorry, I’ll move that. All right, and seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis.

[2:25:22] And yeah, so I need a debate on the as amended motion. You’re not going to have to stand for a moment. Oh, actually, Councillor Robin, glad. I’m sorry. Thank you, and through you, and I’m not doing this to make you stand. So I just want to comment on the letter from Corlon, specifically with respect to this motion. First, I want to say I appreciate the discussion I’ve had with the developer in this area.

[2:25:58] And for those of you that know the area, Sunningdale, Corlon has been quite considerate of the community when they build. And so one of the things they’ve done is they’ve worked extensively within the community around the build out of these community trails. And the trail system that they’ve worked on in the area is meant for residents to utilize for leisure. And they’ve made sure that that amenity connects in really well in the neighborhoods.

[2:26:32] And so one of the things they brought forward with this consideration was around now, or with this plan of subdivision, is wanting to make sure that the trail system had the connectivity so that it also allowed for people to get around and especially between Wonderland and Sunningdale using the trail system versus having to go fully on the roadway. So they are investing in that development quite a bit and making sure that there is that connectivity.

[2:27:07] During the debate at planning, what I heard was, well, it needs to connect into a school site. So I want to make clear one thing, this school site has not been optioned. It is not, as of yet, as of right now, it is not officially a school site. And we know those challenges of getting a school approved in the area and how that may or may not end up being a school site. But with respect to where the bike lanes go and there’s a series of maps that outlines part A, B, and C of that plan of subdivision and where those routes go, to me, I agree that with the developer partially, that those routes aren’t fully needed everywhere.

[2:27:50] And I think that there is opportunity to continue the conversation around what that looks like on certain types of neighborhood connectors. The challenge is that what we’re assuming is all neighborhood connectors are the same. And I actually think in this case where they’re saying, hey, we’ve got some neighborhood connectors that are actually low traffic. Do we need to have this full build out of connected bike lanes? Do we need to have the full build out of these traffic calming measures? And they come back and said, look, this could increase the cost of housing in this area.

[2:28:26] Now, others may say this is an expensive area of town. And these houses are going to be a lot anyways. It’s still a cost for homeowners if they have that pass that along. And so I appreciate the forethought that goes into the build out of these communities, what they look like. And I think that the developer has good intention with that. They’re saying, please work with us to find a way forward. And the fact that this has the plan of subdivision conversation that’s back and forth about the bike lanes, et cetera, has held up the moving forward of the subdivision, I think, is concerning.

[2:29:05] And I don’t want to see other projects in this same boat where they’re not being approved because of this. And especially when it wasn’t agreed upon policy yet. OK, any other speakers on the yes and mender motion? OK. Seeing none more open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to 0.

[2:29:42] Councillor Lehman. Thank you. And moving on to number 12 regarding 3849 Campbell Street North. Or do I have to put the amended motion on the floor? I’m sorry, I’m lost. I think you’ve got to put the committee’s motion on the floor and then you can— OK, so we’re at number four, correct? No. No, we’re on 12 now. OK, so I went to 12, right? Yeah, 12 is good. So that’s what I did. Yes, I put 12 on the floor. You’re doing it perfect, yeah.

[2:30:13] But I thought there was hesitancy there. So I thought I was missing something. No, you’re doing great. We’ll see how the debate goes. But so far, it’s starting out great. To us on the floor, if Councillor Hopkins, you’d like to speak to it. Yes, Your Worship, I asked to have this one pulled. This is a application in Ward 9. And I want to, first of all, start off and think staff. And the applicant, I know there was a lot of work that went into this application. And I do want to also say that I am not going to be supporting this.

[2:30:47] The reason I’m not supporting it, basically, is regarding the buffering, our environmental measurement guidelines, say 30 meter buffering. This is probably about 15. And I know there’s a lot of work still to be done through the site plan process. But I think it’s really important in representing residents that have spoken to me the importance of natural heritage features. This is a significant woodlot. And I do think it matters to them. And I know, I just would like to see, when it comes to these features, that we can provide that buffering that is needed.

[2:31:34] And so we’ll not be supporting this. Any other speakers? OK. Oh, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m going to be very brief. Completely respect, Councillor Hopkins. I know this is in her ward. And so there’s concerns around that. But I will encourage colleagues to support this. We do have to balance the need for housing and development with the other things that we compete against.

[2:32:11] This came forward with staff recommended support. And I just want to draw colleagues’ attention to the fact that our EMGs, our environmental management guidelines, they’re not regulations. And sometimes there is a give and take in those in terms of being able to accommodate and fit in a new housing development. So while I appreciate the concern, I really encourage colleagues to support this. We have to balance those factors. And this is one of those cases where the staff recommendation came forward that the buffers provided for our sufficient.

[2:32:50] Any other speakers? OK. Oh, go ahead, Councillor Trozab. Through the chair, could I just ask staff, is there any room for further compromise on this, where some of Councillor Hopkins’ concerns can be incorporated into the project? Thank you. Through the chair, through the zoning, that would limit in terms of the development limit. And there is the five meter extra buffer. So it’s 10 meters outside of the draft plan, and then five meters within the draft plan.

[2:33:26] So for the 50 meter wide buffer. And the five meter buffer is zoned, OS. So thank you through the chair again. So what I think I’m hearing is that there is no reconciliation between the buffer issue and proving this project? Yeah, go ahead. Thank you through the chair, through the debate at committee and the decision from committee. And if approved by council through the zoning, there’s no debate.

[2:34:03] OK, well, thank you very much. That clarifies that for me. And for the reasons that Councillor Hopkins stated, I will be voting no on this. But I’ll just keep my comments brief, because that’s what I wanted to say. Thank you. OK, any other speakers? All right, seeing none, we’re going to open that for voting. I was in vote motion carries 12 to 3.

[2:34:42] Councillor? Thank you. That concludes the 734 of the planning environment. OK, I’m going to try to squeeze in one more, if I can. Because I think we can maybe get this in before 330. I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis in the SBCC report. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m happy to bring forward the 634 of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee. I have been asked by Councillor Stevenson to pull item 8. That’s 5.2 from your committee agenda, the Municipal Diversity Plan for Appointments and London Police Services Board.

[2:35:14] I’ve not been made aware of any other requests to have items dealt with separately. Anything else separate on SPPC? OK, seeing none, you can make a motion. OK, then I am prepared to move items 1 through 7 of the committee report. OK, 1 through 7 is on the floor. Any discussion? Councillor Cudi and then Councillor McAllister. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you. I’d just like to speak very briefly to number 8, 4.2. Can a disability benefit to— I want to thank Deputy Mayor Lewis for crafting this motion for Councillor McAllister and myself and for the work that Councillor McAllister has done on this file as well.

[2:36:02] This is really important for us, Your Worship. I’m really grateful that we as these 10 Councillors could work together on this. And this dovetails quite nicely with the rear eviction by-law that we were able to put together last year and the work that we do for our constituents in the East End. And this is critical for all Londoners, Your Worship. But it’s most critical for us in the East End, where we do have a lot of people suffering. And we look forward to movement on this file. And we hope we see some progress like other communities have.

[2:36:35] So thank you to my fellow Councillors. All right, thank you, Councillor McAllister. Go ahead. Thank you to the mayor, echoing kind of what Councillor Cuddy said. Appreciate the Deputy Mayor. All three of us, 1, 2, 3, in chronological order supporting each other on this one. I’m sure we’ve all heard, especially folks who are on ODSP in the city, that it’s really just not making the cut these days. They absolutely need support. And not having this clawback, I think, is one way that we as municipality can advocate to the province to not do that, to allow people to have a little bit of money in their pocket, doesn’t go a long way, but every little bit helps and continue to advocate for the raising of ODSP with the province.

[2:37:14] Thank you. OK, any other speakers? Seeing none, we’re going to open this for voting. This is everything, 1 through 7, with the exception of 8. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries, 15 to 0. Deputy Mayor, thank you, Your Worship. I am prepared to put item 8, the Municipal Diversity Plan for Appointments to Lunt Police Services Board on the floor. OK, and Councillor Stevenson, I think you’re going to get it. You wanted to try to refer, or no?

[2:37:47] OK, no. All right, so 8’s on the floor. Any discussion on 8? All right, seeing none, then we can open 8 for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries, 14 to 1. OK, I’m going to see if Colleagues want to take a 10 minute break now. Yeah, I see nods, OK? So a motion for 10 minutes.

[2:38:19] Councillor Stephen seconded by. Councillor Palose, I’ll do that by hand. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. OK, I’ll just say, Colleagues, it’s a great time to let Ms. Korman know if you want bylaws pulled separate, and you’re thinking about it.

[2:38:58] Great time to let her know. Test, test, test, test, test.

[2:51:06] All right, thanks, please be seated. We’re on to the 8th report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee.

[2:52:27] I’ll go to Chair Councillor ramen to present the report. Thank you. And through you, I’m happy to present the 8th report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee. I have been asked to pull item 7 and 8, so I’m looking to craft a motion to put items 1 through 10, except for 7 and 8 forward. Great. Would anybody like anything else dealt with separately on there? No, seeing none, then go ahead. Thank you.

[2:52:59] I’ll move that. All right, 1 through 6, 9 and 10 are on the floor. Any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll open that for a vote. Motion carries 15 to 0.

[2:53:37] Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you. I will look to put item 7 on the floor, the commemorative naming of streets and city assets status update. And I’m looking to move the Committee recommendation. OK, so the Council will put the Committee recommendation on the floor. I will go to speakers. Councillor Pluzza, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And just wanted to thank staff for the work on this one behind the scenes. It’s been a long wait, but it involved lots of community engagement across different sectors and groups in our community.

[2:54:13] As this evolved from last term of council to now, we have several namings that the Committee recommended. One of the streets, two of the parks, want to highlight the letter of support as well from the London Abuse Women’s Center, highlighting the work and why it matters for safety, a safe London for women girls as we move through this. I did have an amendment. And for expediency, I’ll look to put on the floor now. It is to add in part E that civic administration be directed to rename plantation road to large road.

[2:54:48] I’ll speak to it once it’s on the floor. OK, I’ll look for a seconder for that change. Councillor Trost has willing to second. OK, it’s on the floor, Councillor. OK, thank you. It is up on the monitors, just for anyone following online. It’s that civic administration be directed to rename plantation road to large road, knowing that the proposed name maintains the tree theme, the neighboring streets. It’s included in the city’s pre-approved list of street names, aligns with the existing policy framework, and has been reviewed using Ontario Human Rights Commission’s human rights-based approach framework with input from the city’s anti-racism, anti-oppression division, it being known that this work would be completed in the next six months.

[2:55:28] All of this has been approved and vetted through staff and the clerk’s office doing the administrative stuff behind the scenes. I want to thank those who reached out to share their insights to those who shared public comments that you would have seen on the added, and those that have been circulated even as recently as this afternoon, to the 300-plus black learners who helped shape the city’s 2020-25-29 anti-black racism action plan, and the action plan clearly states that we must encourage civic engagement, celebrate the contributions of black residents, and create welcoming public spaces that reflect the values of equity, inclusion, and justice.

[2:56:08] Colleagues, let me be clear. Just because something has existed a certain way for a long time, and just because a limited number of residents have spoken up in the past does not mean that it should remain unchanged. We evolve, we learn, we grow, and we strive to do better. The power of language is instrumental in shaping society of values and movements. Some residents have said, in corresponds with me, stop the silliness, don’t rename it. Others argue that council has better things to do, and we cannot cater to people’s hurt feelings.

[2:56:43] Others frame it as another step towards George Orwell’s 1984. Some say the cost of renaming is prohibitive too much, the staff of the estimated to be around $5,000. This is not about feelings. This is about belonging, history, and respect. Here’s feedback from black community members. I don’t really know what to say about all this. I’m tired of writing letters and responding to so much BS that goes on at City Hall. I wonder if they actually care about equity, fairness, or racism.

[2:57:18] Another writes, who feels it, knows it. No one can fully truly understand the hurt unless they live it. No one gets to decide for someone else that of what part it’s painful. To dismiss their pain is to miss part of their humanity. The name Plantation Road may seem harmless to some, but for many, especially black residents and those of African descent, it’s not benign. It carries the weight of history, oppression, exploitation, and deep generational trauma. It affects their sense of belonging and inclusion.

[2:57:51] And the words of Miss Long for many black Canadians invokes the legacy of transatlantic slave trade, the brutal Plantation economy, and a system of youth black lives as property to be exploited. Colleagues, this is not a symbolic gesture. It’s meaningful action that says we hear you, we see you, and your experience matters. This is about more than a road sign. It’s about the kind of community we want to build and where everyone feels they belong. One where harm, unintentional or not, is addressed and not ignored.

[2:58:25] And one where we don’t let the past define the future, especially when we have the power to change it, the status quo is not acceptable at the expense of community well-being. Refusing to act is not neutrality, it’s complicity. So I ask for your support in the motion that’s before you for the remaining of Plantation Road. Okay, other speakers on this. Go ahead, Councillor Layman.

[2:59:02] Thank you, Your Worship. As this is in my ward, my fields, my incumbent upon me to bring back the impact that those that live on Plantation Road will feel. Plantation Road was built around 1959, 1960. It’s a small street in the middle of a subdivision. I knocked on all the doors on the street. I spoke to 23 people.

[2:59:36] And I just want to bring back the input that I received and share it with Council. I went through this committee as well. Many of you were there for those that weren’t in attendance. I wanted to share it as well. Three folks wanted to see the name changed, including the family of the young lady that brought this petition forward about five or six years ago. Two were ambivalent, but 18 spoke in depth about the impact that the name of this road has and the implications of changing it have.

[3:00:21] I’ve kind of divided that into three main areas for concern. The first one being is simply the administration that they would have to bear to change that. It’s a small thing to change your address. We see it when we buy a new house, the illegal fees that we have to incur and else other things when we do make that change. So this happening when not requested by the street is impactful.

[3:00:55] And it’s impactful on government documents, utilities, banking information, legal information, mortgages, deeds, wills, insurance. And the many unknowns that people aren’t aware of that need to be changed as a result of this, including friends and family that have to be reached out and updated with their new information. It was mentioned in the discussion, how the committee that this is a simple thing, simply point and click. There are many seniors on this street where that’s not such a simple thing to do.

[3:01:34] So that was one serious area of concern. The other one is the history of the street. And the history of the street is recognition of the tree grove that was there. It was named after tree plantation. There’s plantations all over the world, including, for example, coffee plantations. And in recognition of that, the developer name is Plantation Road and then around it with various tree names. This was highlighted by many folks that were aware of the history of their street. The third thing, and I want to be brief here ‘cause I went through this at committee.

[3:02:12] And this is the one that I wasn’t expecting. And it resonated with me. When you’ve lived on a street for some for 50, 60 years, you’ve seen kids grow up on that street. There’s some second generation families that have now moved in. The street we live on is more than just a name and a signpost is part of your identity and your shared memories amongst your family, friends and neighbors that you have a long history with. And I think that was the one that was highlighted that they saw that, you know, City Council is not acknowledging when they change.

[3:02:55] If they’re considering the change. They’ve been under this, you know, they thought this was finished a five or six years ago and here it’s back on the agenda again. So I wanted to share those thoughts of the folks that live on that street for your consideration. And on their behalf, I ask you to vote against this amendment. Thank you. The speakers.

[3:03:30] I go ahead, Councillor Ramen. Thank you and through you. So I did speak to this, excuse me during the committee meeting. So I will, I won’t repeat myself in terms of that my comments there. But I just want to explore what’s in front of us here, which is around the renaming to LARC Road. So it says here in the motion that the name was approved, reviewed by city staff using the OHRC lens and framework and that AREO has reviewed this name.

[3:04:06] And I just want to clarify some things that I’ve come across in terms of the name. Okay, so the LARC tree is my understanding and I’m not sure if, again, you know, you can find things online, they vary. I didn’t have a lot of time to research this because it came up or I received this and very close to the committee meeting. My understanding of the tree, it’s the only deciduous, this is again what I read online, Conifer in Europe and that the tree was brought to the US and to North America in the 1800s.

[3:04:56] I don’t know if we know if that’s correct or not. Yeah, I know. Councillor Hilliard’s holding up his phone, like he’s chat GPT did, but. I’m sorry, worship, could you just repeat the question? We were just confirming on this matter, my apologies. Go ahead, Councillor. - Sorry, thank you. And I appreciate this. Like I said, I didn’t have time to send this into staff because I didn’t, and I don’t have a way to verify any of this information other than I found it online. So the only deciduous Conifer in Europe, is that correct?

[3:05:31] And that was brought into the US and North America in the 1800s. Go ahead. Thank you through the chair. These are pre-approved names on our city list. We went through our full pre-approved list. We looked for one specific to trees and larges are common in Ontario. And so it was a readily available name to help with facilitate this discussion today. Go ahead, Councillor.

[3:06:05] Thank you. So earlier we talked about the power of language and meaning and interpretation that goes along with the names that we choose. I’m just wondering what significance this tree holds and whether or not the tree is associated with significance, mythology, or anything of the sort that may be in conflict, perhaps, with other designated groups in our community, perhaps within those same groups that are asking for the name to be changed. Yeah, go ahead. Mayor, I did have my anti-Black racism advisor look at it and we did look at it through a bunch of branches to make sure this name doesn’t have any other negative connotations.

[3:06:51] And based on their feedback, we recommended among the three different names that are proposed large should be the best option at this point. Well, thank you. Just need the microphone. Through you. My understanding is that the name is connected with European mythology around protective powers against evil spirits as well. Do we see any issue with the naming of the street after a tree and some of the information that’s been shared today?

[3:07:35] I’m not sure if you can answer that, but you can, no, go ahead. If I could, and I appreciate this information. We’re happy to take this back if you want us to get further information. I will say that I have also Googled large and understand it to be a tall paniferous tree in Canada. So we’re happy to share whatever information you would like us to share. Respect thing, of course, that this came today from somebody who has put it forward, a council’s put it forward. We have given advice on it, and I want to be clear, it is an approved name in our city names, street names. So if you’re asking for us to look at different names in those approved names list, we’re happy to do that.

[3:08:10] We’re happy to look at the list as well. Thank you. My concern is that I’m not certain that the legacy of this name won’t, in fact, create some challenges in terms of the information that I just shared. This is the challenge with naming things, right? Is that we learn new informations, we learn about new significances and meanings and how they interconnect with different people and their upbringings, and there could be a reason for concern.

[3:08:46] My concern when I looked at this at committee and when I look at this now is to me, it actually doesn’t address for me what I would have liked to see happen within our renaming. And that is to take a bigger stride and to rename a street for someone of historical significance from either the local black community or within the historical black community here in the area. I think to me that’s where we could have taken further steps and made change by picking a tree and me as off a list.

[3:09:27] My concern is that we’re not addressing that and instead what we’re doing is we’re trying to find something that has significance as the forest city, which I agree, we should. But again, I think we need more thought on this before we move forward and I won’t be supporting the renaming to this. Other speakers? Councilor Shaw, go ahead. Thank you very much and through the chair, I was simply going to rise and say that I felt Councillor Palosa did an excellent job expressing my sentiments and I wanted to agree with her.

[3:10:14] But I’ve just looked at my email and if I may, I thought a very compelling letter came in after the added deadline. So it wasn’t added to our added agenda. And if I may, this was just sent to us from the clerk to Council agenda. So I think it is intended to be in public. So if I may just briefly read it, it’s a very short letter. May I do that? That’s up to you, Councillor. Hopefully you ideally have permission from the person. Well, yes, and it was sent to Council agenda. So the intention was to put it in the added.

[3:10:48] Just wanted to send this email to recommend the renaming of Plantation Road. It was distressing to hear about the situation at all. Due to the racist reference and history associated with the word, our organization, and by the way, this is Black Youth Connect, is the name of the organization. It’s from our organization is dedicated to championing, supporting and engaging Black youth in the city of London, Ontario. Recently, we took part in the city, stop taller hating initiative, and know how important it is to spread awareness and take steps to combat hate.

[3:11:23] It is with small actions such as this, renaming a road that calls reference to the darker side of history and colonialism so that we can hope to make and see change. Thank you. From the program lead and social media manager, a Black Youth Connect. And I just want to express my agreement with this statement. I want to express my solidarity with this group and I’m sorry we don’t have, this is the name that we have. This process has been going on for a long time.

[3:11:59] And the fact that this process has been going on this long has really been the source of frustration for people. And I don’t recall anybody saying, let’s at least think of what the backups are. So while I appreciate what the previous speaker said, I just think at this point, I’m happy to go along with the approved name. I also want to mention that I think that the ward counselor was very diligent. And he did the right thing by going around canvassing people. But there is a much broader population in London besides the people that are living on this particular street that we have to take into account.

[3:12:39] And so I do want to tip my hat to the ward counselor complimenting you, Steve, you might want to listen. I do want to tip my hat to the ward counselor for being diligent, but I have to disagree with the methodology here. And I am going to be going along with the broader sentiment from the community. And I really want to thank again, Councillor Palosa for bringing this forward. And those are my comments. Thank you. Yeah, there’s other speakers on the amendment. Seeing none, then the amendments on the floor, it’s moved and seconded, and we can open that for voting.

[3:13:41] Closing the vote, motion fails, six to nine. Okay, so back to the main motion. I’ll continue with debate or discussion on the main motion. Councillor Hopkins. Yes, I’ll speak to D, and I’ll also speak to the main motion. I didn’t support D, a committee, and I will not be supporting it here at council. So I would like to have that voted on separately. I do think if we are going to start to name things, we do need to look at it through a human rights lens.

[3:14:26] And I appreciate the word Councillor’s comments, a committee doing his due diligence to make sure that that name was important to the community. But I do think we need to have staff do the work behind naming streets. I would like to maybe just take this opportunity as well to speak to the amendment that just lost. I did support it not being removed from the recommendation, plantation road, that is, at committee.

[3:15:07] And the reason I thought we needed to keep it in there was because when this did originally come to us on Council Your Worship, I too felt why are we having this conversation? Why are we getting into the weeds and the renaming of things? So Councillor just. Yeah. So in the main motion that came out of committee, it was not, what’s before us is the committee recommendation. So that piece wasn’t in. Councillor Ploza added a motion to that.

[3:15:40] We debated that, we had discussion on that. So we’re now back to the remaining pieces of the committee recommendation, which doesn’t include another debate on that. We just had that one. Yes, go ahead, point of order. Thank you. The committee, it was clearly articulated that the plantation road though not moved on the committee floor was actually still within the committee report and within order. That was the ruling on committee. Yeah, I’m just saying, I’m just talking about what’s before us in the motions that are remaining. And I’m not saying that we couldn’t have a debate. We just had a debate about adding it back in.

[3:16:14] But I mean, the Councillor can continue with her comments. So just make sure you comment on the pieces that are still before us too as well, please. I just did on D and why I didn’t support it. So your worship, if I can have clarification on the plantation road conversation that was originally in the recommendation but was removed a committee. Am I allowed to speak to that right now? Yeah, if you’d like to speak to plantation road, you could move a motion related to it to amend because it’s not actually part of the committee’s recommendation at this point.

[3:16:51] So if you’re gonna make comments, I guess I’m just wondering. Okay, so if I can make an amendment then to add a plantation road back in. So what are you adding it in to do? To have maybe refer it back to have, I’m trying to have the ability here on council to speak to plantation road. So how do I do that? I’m trying to help you, Councillor. I’m not sure. So I’m just trying to manage the meeting.

[3:17:24] If you want to speak to plantation road, people are fine with that, you can, but we just had a debate on plantation road based on the Councillor’s amendment. So go ahead, but it’s gotta be within the context of the committee recommendation before us. There was a discussion just now at council based on an amendment. There’s a number of items before us. That’s what’s before us. I’m always asked to try to keep us to the pieces that are on the floor. So I’ll give you a little bit of leeway, but we need to hear your comments on like the pieces that are before us and what you feel about those as well. So on the recommendation, I am supportive of some of the changes that committee approved.

[3:18:02] I am not supportive of D, which is renaming a two-piecekeeper place. And the reason I didn’t support it at committee was because I would have preferred to have that referred back to staff to have that human rights lens to look at the opportunities to rename. So to rename Trutha Wilson Place. I would, however, like to have this opportunity to speak to the recommendation that came out of committee, that at committee we remove Plantation Road to even have it renamed.

[3:18:47] So I’m not sure if I can do that now or how do I— Just go ahead, Councilor, just keep going. I appreciate having a moment to speak to Plantation Road. And I wanna thank the word counselor for doing his due diligence. And I also wanna thank Councillor Pluzza for the work and for her comments that she’s made here. I really feel very strongly that we here on council make decisions for the greater good of the community. And Plantation Road was something that I learned that it didn’t matter to other people.

[3:19:25] It didn’t matter to me. And I’m sure we can go through so many names and changes and we’re still not going to come together. But it does matter to Londoners and it was an important opportunity, I think for us as a council to say that other voices matter. So with that, I would like to be removed and thank you for allowing me to speak. No problem. So we can vote on D separately for you. That’s no trouble at all. And I’ll continue with speakers. Go ahead, Councillor or Deputy Mayor Lewis.

[3:20:03] Thank you, worship. I’m gonna speak to the motion that’s on the floor, including clause D and actually most specifically clause D. And I’m gonna start by saying to my colleagues that when you undertake these things and this process is now five years old, a little bit more actually. And I had a conversation with Mr. Cavick on Friday and I said, I appreciate what you’re bringing forward. You’re the fourth staff person I’ve dealt with on this.

[3:20:38] I know that all the previous history is not on you. And so I wanna reiterate that again. I appreciate the conversation I was able to have with him and his neatly on this. And I think this is why it’s really important that we have moving forward the primary focus on street names coming through the planning process, coming through approved lists of names and making sure that we primarily are not conflicting with existing names so that emergency services get confused that we’re associating the street at the right type of naming, place, drive, street, road, all of those different things.

[3:21:12] That’s an important part of the discussion that’s really been missing here. I will say that I recognize that there was a briefing note circulated to council on a peacekeeper place. And I’m gonna just say I profoundly reject some of the findings in that briefing note. And I’m gonna encourage colleagues to continue to support peacekeeper place. Because when I talk about a five year delay here, I want colleagues to keep in mind that there is a family in this city who has multiple times through the course of this process had to have their son’s name, their son who gave his life in the service of our country brought up and essentially re-victimizing the family members by making them relive the fact that their son is no longer with us.

[3:22:08] So whether you agree, and quite honestly, the members of Trooper Wilson place in terms of the residents today, profoundly rejected any sort of naming. However, this one is a little bit different than Plantation Road, because I recognize the council has already decided in a past term that a renaming had to happen. Because the name doesn’t actually exist within what would be appropriate in our current policy, not a new policy, but within our current policy. So it is a little bit different.

[3:22:40] And I think it’s really important to highlight that. So we have to move forward with this. I’m gonna say it respectfully. I think when staff need to review something that we need to put a little more focus on local context and local realities, there’s a Cenotaph at Oneida and they celebrate remembrance day ceremonies there every year. There’s a great relationship with the Royal Canadian Legion.

[3:23:12] There’s actually a special veteran’s pin that honors indigenous folks. And part of the highlight of the briefing note that we were circulated was that there may be concerns from the indigenous community. And then I talked about the legacy of residential schools. Well, the Canadian forces were not part of residential school policy. That was respectfully the RCMP. And to see that kind of connection, tenuous as it is being made in this report says to me that absolutely every name that we bring forward. ‘Cause remember, in the original staff reported committee, a military theme name for this place was suggested by staff as consistent with the neighborhood.

[3:23:51] But if we’re gonna start making those tenuous connections with somehow peacekeeper place is related to RCMP enforcement actions around residential schools, which are two very different branches of the Canadian government, then we may as well just start putting numbers on streets because every name is going to be objected to by someone for some reason. And that is not the purpose of this. The purpose of this is to be respectful in our street names moving forward. We’ll look at opportunities to honor our history, to honor relations, as was mentioned in the previous discussion, trees in the forest city, those sorts of things.

[3:24:34] That’s the purpose of the policy recommended 30 seconds coming forward. But when it comes to peacekeeper place, let’s not put the residents of that street or the Wilson family through any more than they’ve already had to go through. Please accept this. The residents of the street don’t want it, but it is the most palatable option if we’re going to rename for people to support. Okay, other speakers to the community recommendation, which is what’s on the floor, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I’d like to vote on B separately. Sorry, B separately?

[3:25:11] Okay, so we’ll do B and D separate. The other ones so far, we’re going to do together. If everybody’s okay with that. If you don’t want it separated, you can let me know at the time of voting. Any other speakers? Go ahead, Councillor Ferra. Thank you, Mayor. There’s a couple of items here, and I don’t want to be ruffling in any feathers, but I do know of a silent majority that don’t necessarily speak out, but they do talk about the plantation road thing. I am not suggesting any names, but I do see the recommendation did recommend to have a public engagement session to consider a new name, and I do see that that’s not part of the recommendation right now.

[3:25:53] I would like to ask if Council would be willing to support maybe just looking into the public engagement session to look into the plantation road renaming, just because even though we did not see many communications on the agenda, I know that there are a lot out there that do want to have a reconsideration of that name. So I would move the committee recommendation that we saw in the report. So is that the last part again, Councillor? I’m looking to move the exact recommendation as we saw in the report.

[3:26:29] So you want to amend this committee recommendation to add what part? It would be to add D. So, or it would be D from the report, it would be civic administration be directed to commence a public engagement, public engagement with the impacted neighborhood to consider the renaming of plantation road. Okay, so that you could add that as an amendment, yes. That was the point I was trying to make with Councillor, but Councillor before I was like, you got to put an amendment on the floor to talk about something so you can make that if there’s a seconder. So I’ll move that.

[3:27:00] There’s a secondary in Councillor Hopkins. Okay, so that’s an amendment on the floor, moved by Councillor for our seconded by Councillor Hopkins. We’ll start to debate on that amendment. Go ahead, Councillor Ferra. I just, like I said, in my intro onto this one, I know that there are those out there that have not necessarily reached out to us that are interested in potentially finding a new name. I’m not recommending any new names. I just would like to go back to the committee recommendation to start that process and I apologize for continuing the process on, but I do feel like this is the way we should be moving for this one.

[3:27:39] Okay, so just so colleagues are clear of what the Councillors moved as an amendment, it’s the original D, I think it’ll be E in this particular motion, but it was a civic administration to be directed to commence public engagement with the impacted neighborhood to consider the renaming of plantation road. Okay, so that’s on the floor. I look for other speakers to that. Go ahead, Councillor Layman. Yeah, I’m tempted to call a point of order. I think that this was voted down at committee. Again, motion related to this was voted down here tonight for today, I know there’s some Councillors that are not happy with the outcome of that vote.

[3:28:15] For the same reasons that I spoke against the motion that was previously on the floor, I encourage people to, once and for all, respect the wishes of the people on the street. And I move forward on this item and not support this. Thank you. Other speakers, Councillor Trozab. Yes, and through the chair, I will be supporting this amendment. I think this deals with the same subject area that we had at committee in a previous vote, but it wasn’t identical.

[3:28:53] So I do think it’s an order. And I do think it would really be a way for us to send a strong message to the community that we really care about how they feel and what they’re saying. And yes, that includes right in the middle of this controversy, people on the street, but it does include the broader community. And I hate to extend this whole process through another engagement.

[3:29:27] But I think based on where we are in this procedure right now, this is what we have to do. So I will be supporting the Councillor’s amendment. Thank you. Councillor Hopkins. Beyond the amendment, happy to see this come forward. I was disappointed at committee that we could, it was removed from the recommendation and conversation. So hope you can support it. I’ll just be clear, Councillor. It wasn’t removed when Councillor Pribble moved the motion, he didn’t include it.

[3:30:03] So that’s what Council’s for. You can add things back in. It’s in order to do this, despite what some Councillors may think, because that’s how it works. And that’s what I was saying before, when I said you wanted to speak to it, we need to put a motion on the floor to speak to an item that’s not before Council. So it’s here, I just want to be clear. Like committee didn’t remove it, it just, it never made it through committee, but it was on the agenda, people can bring it up. So that’s why, just so everybody’s clear, that’s why I’m allowing it, is because this is a normal thing that we’ve done before, when something doesn’t get through the committee, but it was in a report, okay? Other speakers to the amendment.

[3:30:39] Go ahead, Councillor Palosa, and then Councillor Vaih-Merevergan. Sorry, thank you, through you to staff, looking to see what public engagement with the impacted neighbourhood would look like. Specifically, if community concerns were raised about what about the cost, and we know there’s going to be a small stripe and given back to residents to help with maybe some things they need to do to help compensate for their time, realizing a lot of things that were already mentioned, health card, driver’s license, mortgage paperwork, that’s actually free of charge to do an address change, and looking to see if some of the feedback we would give them would be timelines that we’re looking at to have this implemented, some people always were, you know, it’s a couple of weeks, whereas we’re really looking at months, and if some of that feedback would be provided to them of why it matters to certain people in the community, like they might not have a connection to them, might not be watching our meetings, just so they can understand the context of why it matters to some.

[3:31:42] Thank you, through the chair, engagement, as you can appreciate, it’s a very sensitive subject matter, and it would be something that we’d be taking very deliberate action in terms of engaging the impact of on the street itself. So those would be each of those 32 households. It would start with a conversation, it would be opening to have in-person conversations, and generally it would be in places that are convenient or comfortable for them, rather than having them come to City Hall, for example, and working with them, understanding the concerns that they have, explaining the process in terms of what the costs are.

[3:32:18] Generally, what we do is we do protract the start date, at least six months or longer, and the reason so that they can do all the work to change any addresses for the various legal and things like that, that takes time, and working through what the cost is, and it would be $100 per household, unless if there’s other resources available, which that’s within our budget right now. Go ahead, Councilor. Thank you for that. I know just for Council’s information, it was discussed a little bit behind the scenes, if there’s multiple people in our household, or if the $100 wasn’t worth their time, that there is budget to do something more, looking as well to see there was one name before us today, but there’s actually three names already approved on the list, if the consultation moves forward, would residents be given those three names for as part of this process for their feedback?

[3:33:17] Through the chair, yes, we would provide other names as well for a choice, and then generally be a consensus. Thank you, it would come at no surprise that I’d be willing to support the public engagement. I just did the other motion to help streamline the process. Should some people want to skip public engagement, realizing I’ve heard from residents on both sides of the debate on the street, some support of some not? So happy to support this. Okay, other, oh, Councilor Vameer-Brigon, sorry, you’re on the list.

[3:33:51] Thank you, Mayor. I will not be supporting this amendment. I think it’s fairly clear, there is very little political will on this Council to continue on these machinations about the name Plantation Road. It’s been the name of this street. It’s been people’s homes, people’s addresses for 65 years. Now, all of a sudden, it’s become well incendiary. And why?

[3:34:24] The people on that street don’t want to change the name, but the city of London is going to come swooping in because there’s some people that maybe have a different point of view, and it’s certainly not the majority. And I’m going to force them to have to change their address. So Councilor— For what purpose? I’m just going to say that the motion isn’t to make a change. The motion is consultation, so there’s no one’s being forced on anything. I just want you to keep your comments to the motion, right? The motion is consultation with the street. It’s not to actually make a change at this time. Well, again, what is the purpose of a consultation with the street that doesn’t want to be consulted right now?

[3:35:01] There’s no, I think I heard the word controversy. It’s a manufactured controversy. The street is perfectly fine with their name. So what is the problem? I mean, I’ve talked to other Councillors, not my own emails that I get and people that are contacting me. It’s not even mentioned, like it’s— so where is it coming from? This drive that, frankly, is anti-democratic in the sense that the people that are most affected do not want it. We’ve heard from the ward, Councillor. He’s gone door knocking.

[3:35:33] Thirty-six are perfectly fine with it. Yet we insist that we have to have a consultation. It doesn’t make sense. I’ll certainly be voting against this. I mean, plantations have been around since the 1400s. They’re around today. It’s a form of agriculture. It’s a very important form of agriculture for the world’s food growing sources, such as tea, coffee, cocoa, et cetera. And what we heard from the ward, Councillor, there was a tree plantation. Yes, a tree plantation in that location.

[3:36:06] And that’s why, in that part of Oak Ridge, you have a lot of tree names, cypress, hibiscus, et cetera. But somehow, here we are in 2025, and 1960, it was fine, and it’s been fine up until just a few years ago. So I would say, let’s vote this down and put this to rest. We have far more serious issues in this city than the name of plantation road in Oak Ridge. Other speakers, go ahead, Councillor Ramen. Thank you, and through you, I’m just wanting clarification now on the motion that’s in front of us.

[3:36:44] So in the other parts of the motion, where it talks about public engagement, it says to rename, and this one says to consider. So I’m just looking for more clarification why we would be going out to the community with new names, if it’s just considered, because wouldn’t that be a yes or a no at this point? So, Councillor, the language is in the staff report.

[3:37:28] I think maybe your question refers to the response staff gave about suggesting other possible names. I think that’s their interpretation of the motion, but the motion is just to consider the renaming of plantation road. It doesn’t say that there will be a renaming of the road from the way that the wording is written. So I’m not sure if Miss McMealy saw that or when she made her comments earlier, but if you have a guess, a question directly to her about this, maybe a specific question would be helpful.

[3:38:01] Thank you, happy to. So the report of which this is now, we’re now lifting the recommendation from, and the report is mentioned in this motion as well, it refers to specific direction around the renaming, and specifically to rename after a tree. And I’m just looking for clarification on what we’re asking of the community, or of those that live on the street at this point. I’m going to go to staff on this, because the motion is identical to the wording in the report that they originally wrote.

[3:38:38] So I think the Councillor’s question is for you, not for the mover. Thank you. The previous question was about the consultation process, and that’s what I was responding to. With this one, it is really to the impacted neighbors to consider if they would like their street name renamed, and that’s how I would interpret that motion. Mr. Mayor, point of order, privilege of the name of help. The point of order council had already did direction to change the name of the two parks in the place.

[3:39:14] So those names were already approved to be changed. So that’s why the wording was different, whereas apparently this plantation road wasn’t a decided matter of the last council. So it’s back with a direction to consult, versus already move forward. Council has not made that decision. Yeah, thanks. OK, I see nods. Go ahead, Councillor Roman. Thank you, and that’s helpful. I think with respect to the consultation— so when I have a planning application, or I have a file in front of me, I have an infrastructure project, something going on in my ward.

[3:39:52] Like other Councillors around this horseshoe, I go door to door, and I talk to neighbors, and I get their perspective, and then I bring that perspective back here for discussion. And I do that because I know that you value the voice that I bring to the table from the residents I represent. I think Councillor Lehman did that. He went door to door, and he talked to 20 of the 32, I believe, homes on the street about what they’d like to see done in this particular case. We’re not asking for broad consultation.

[3:40:26] We’re asking for consultation for the folks that live on this street. What we are receiving is not just some consultation from those that live on the street. I think I have two to three letters from folks that live on the street. What I’m receiving is actually consultation from the broader community. So I’m a bit confused as to what different outcome we’re expecting when we’re asking residents the same question that the Councillor did the work for already. So for that reason, I won’t be supporting what’s in front of us for a consideration.

[3:41:04] Again, I go back to, I’m not in favor of just renaming this based on what’s in the committee report. I don’t understand how it’s now being separated from the committee report a little bit with the way that we’re envisioning the renaming. So I’m not going to support the direction. Okay, other speakers to the amendment that Councillor Ferrer has proposed. Okay, seeing none, then we’re going to vote on Councillor Ferrer’s amendment, which is adding the original D from the committee report, which is in this report would be an E. So we’ll vote on that now.

[3:41:42] We’ll open that for a vote. Opposed in the vote, motion fails six to nine. Okay, so back to the original committee motion. And I just, I need to find which speakers list that is to see who’s spoken. All right, so Hopkins, Lewis, Stevenson, and Ferrer have spoken to the main motion, I think. So I’ll look for other speakers to the main motion, which is the direction that came through committee.

[3:42:33] I see none. Okay, I’m going to open the committee recommendation for voting. Sorry, there was a request to separate pieces out. So let me just tell you how we’re going to vote on this. All right, so we’re going to do part B, then part D, and then we’ll do the rest. So part B is the direction to apply the Ontario Human Rights Commission framework for requests in the future. We’ll deal with that one, we’ll deal with that one first right now.

[3:43:06] So that’s what we’re going to vote on, and I’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to one. And next will be D, which is the direction to rename Trooper Wilson Place to Peacekeeper Place. We’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to two. And everything else that’s in the clause from the committee, we’ll deal with the rest of it now. We’ll open that for voting.

[3:44:01] Councilor Ferrer, you can vote how early? This was for, sorry, which item this right here?

[3:44:42] This is everything in the committee’s recommendation, except for B and D, which is, receive the report, direct public engagement on the renaming of two different parks, and yes, that’s what it is, I think, am I, I don’t think at all? Yeah, those two pieces. I vote yes. Opposed in the vote, motion. Okay, back to you, Councilor ramen. Thank you. I’ll let’s put item eight on the floor.

[3:45:16] Okay, item eight is on the floor. I’m going to make a comment to eight, I think, I just got to go back to it. Yes, on eight, I’m going to ask, given we’ve been debating a long time, I’m going to see if I can ask for a consensus on just a wording change in this. In item three, there’s a portion related to the 16.9 million to be retained in the operating budget contingency reserve to be applied evenly towards tax mitigation in 2026 to 2027 through a budget amendment in the 2026 budget update.

[3:45:53] The wording budget amendment shouldn’t have been used by committee because there’s no budget to amend yet. It actually was intended to be a business case that we’d be prepared for the budget process. So, I mean, we can go through, I’m happy to see the chair and go through the formal amendment process, but if colleagues all agree, the clerk says, given there technically is no budget to amend yet, we can’t bind council to a budget that doesn’t exist yet, that it really is the business case that should be the language there. So, unless if no one objects, we’re going to change it to that. And I’m just going to outline what that means and what the intent was, just so it’s clear.

[3:46:33] The intent here is that council is not locked into this. What we’re deciding is we will have a business case that will actually explain how this would work if it was applied to the tax levy. When I table a budget, I will decide which business cases this and many others will go in the budget. At that point, council will have the full right for any part of the budget to amend, to remove, to add in anything they’d like to see. And so, there is no decided matter of council associated with this, if the language is business case, which was the original intent. The only thing that is decided is that you’re going to get a business case that tells you what this would look like in those two years.

[3:47:11] And then, I will decide whether or not it goes into the table budget. You will get the opportunity to amend it 10 different ways, if you like, through the budget process without any restrictions whatsoever. So, I just wanted to make sure that was clear. I just want to know if anybody objects to the word business case just being put in, or if not, I’ll just, I’ll see the chair and make a formal amendment. Yes, Councillor Troso. Could I make a point of order first, because I did submit in time for the added agenda, circulated to the public, circulated to the press, circulated very widely, an amendment, and here we are getting something.

[3:47:48] And I’m not necessarily objecting to what you’re saying, but in terms of the order, I do believe that the amendment that I filed with ample, ample advance notice through the process should be loaded into eScribe and dealt with first. And I want to explore through some questions, which I’ll reserve, whether there’s a substantive difference between the amendment that I circulated and what you’re saying. I’m a little confused about it, I’d like that clarified, but I do think that the amendment that was circulated by Councillor Frank and myself should be given the ability to be recognized in this discussion.

[3:48:30] And it was filed first, so I don’t know what that means. Mayor supersedes, Councillors, first in time supersedes, next in time. I don’t know, well, what’s the protocol here? So, Councillor, I’m not superseding you, just like with planning committee, when there is an error in the language that comes to council, we go through amendments to change it. The words budget amendment never should have been in there, because there’s no budget to amend, so I’m not getting ahead of you. I’m just saying the language has to be fixed to council, because we can’t actually ask this, because it shouldn’t have said that. There’s no budget to amend, so we can’t say a budget amendment.

[3:49:05] Business case was the intention, that’s unchanging. You have every right after I make that change, to amend this as per the way that you wanted to, and we can have that debate. And you can ask questions about it, and you can do all that, so is that okay? Yes, I would concur with what you just said. Perfect. Yes. Okay, well then, I don’t see any objections to just saying business case at this point, so that’s how it’s going to be. And now, I can go to you and you can make your amendment, because you did submit and circulate, and we really appreciate you submitting something in advance. Yes, and it’s a short, it’s a short amendment.

[3:49:42] I mean, there’s a preamble that goes on for a few paragraphs, but it’s a, it’s a short amendment, and I would request that that be loaded into these graphs so people can see it. Okay, so, hold on, Councilor, I’m just going to, I’m going to read your amendment, because I have to actually rule on it too. So Councilor, I’m going to give you some advice based on the clerk’s advice. Your amendment is contrary to the item that came out of committee, because the item coming out of committee was specifically to gather information about tax levy mitigation. You’re looking to have it more broadly available, without getting that information about the tax levy mitigation piece.

[3:51:11] So I would suggest if you want to do that, you can just defeat this amendment. It would not be allocated in any way. It would sit in the operating budget contingency reserve until the budget process, because it wouldn’t have been allocated in any way, and it would be there as a source of funding. So you don’t actually have to amend it, amending it would be contrary to what committee said, but if you defeated it, it would achieve the goals, as you’ve outlined in your letter, that it’s completely unallocated, and no information is coming forward on how to use it whatsoever. So I would suggest you don’t need to move an amendment. You need to speak against this piece, defeat it, and then don’t support any alternate direction on it.

[3:51:48] It would sit in the operating budget contingency reserve until the budget process with anything attached to it or any direction associated with it. Councilor. If I may, just make a brief argument as to why I do not think it’s contrary. It’s different, and it includes a lesser included piece, but it doesn’t preclude that piece. It just does not preclude that piece. Point of order from the deputy mayor. Go ahead, microphone. Councilor is essentially challenging the chair’s ruling and giving reasons for challenging the chair’s ruling, a challenge of the chair is non-debatable.

[3:52:24] If he wants to challenge the chair’s ruling, he needs to do so directly, and we need to go right to a vote without debate. Yes, that’s true. What I was doing was giving the councilor some leeway of explanation on how he could achieve his goals within the confines. The deputy mayor is correct. Councilor Trosa, I think you’re about to suggest that you disagree with my ruling that it would be contrary. If you do that, you can simply just challenge the chair. We can have a vote. I will re-emphasize. I think you can achieve what you’re trying to achieve by defeating the committee’s recommendation as well, because your motion doesn’t actually… Your motion isn’t going to create any sort of business case. It’s just going to sit in the OBCR as an available source of funding, which is what would happen if we made no decision on this.

[3:53:16] So you can challenge my decision, but it is fundamentally different than what came through committee, in my opinion. The committee recommendation will generate a report with information. Your motion will simply have it sit there, which is the exact same as just defeating this motion. Okay, I will not be challenging your decision, because that’s not going to move this discussion forward. So I’ll wait until it’s time for me to be able to speak to the substance of why I’m opposing the committee recommendation. Yes, and if you’d like to do that now, that’s exactly where we are now. So we have the committee’s recommendation on the floor by Councillor ramen. It says business case, and if you’d like to defeat this, you could speak against it at this moment.

[3:53:53] And I will start your time on the debate on this. Okay, go ahead. Thank you very much. I’ve given this matter a lot of thought since the time of the committee, and I’ve done some pretty broad consultation. I did consult with people in my work quite a bit, and I did consult with a lot of people on social media. I made it a point to make myself available to the media, and basically the sense that I’m getting, and this includes some of the added agenda items, some of the added agenda letters, and other letters that did not come in, but came out individually, is there is a lot of support in the community for the idea of allowing the budget committee to have the discretion to make a decision about how to spend, invest this extraordinary, large surplus. And just to be clear, I’m only talking about part three. I’m only talking about the 16.9 million, and none of this goes to the first two parts.

[3:55:00] My feeling is this budget surplus gives the Budget Committee and City Council an extraordinary and unusual opportunity to make some very needed changes in the programs and services that we’re offering in this community. And I think if we were in a situation where everything is fine, we wouldn’t have to do that. But we’re hearing from so many different people that we have a serious crisis in terms of homeless services. And you know, when you look in the staff report, when you look at Appendix A, you see that there were so many program areas that were carrying very large surpluses. And I don’t think it was through any fault of theirs.

[3:55:48] I thought the staff did a good job explaining why we have this large surplus at this point. However, I would — and I’m not going to make the generalization that it’s just all being sent back to the program area. That’s not what I’m saying. And I’m not saying that I want it for A, B, C, or D. What I’m saying now is I would like to give the Budget Committee, and this money can sit in a reserve fund until the Budget Committee makes this determination. What I’m saying is the Budget Committee should be able to have the discretion to do — and I want to stress — one-time programs, one-time programs, or programs of very short and limited duration. It’s understood that we can’t just go adding money to the program budget because that gets picked up in subsequent budgets. And this would be very limited. And I think a lot of thought needs to be given to this. I’ve been asked if I could give some examples of what would be a potential one-time or limited or non-recurring cost. There is a unit cost every time we want to set up a warming center for an evening. And we’ll be getting a report very soon telling us what that is. There is a unit cost every time code enforcement does a special Saturday visit to a meeting. And I was told that’s approximately $15,000. But that’s very rough. These are additional items that are within the program areas that have carried the surplus that I think would be beneficial to the community. Now, there’s also the whole question of the arts. It would be within the ability of the committee to put some funds back into a grant program or to target something. And I don’t want to start workshopping this at council and say this is what we should do with the money. I’m just giving some examples. But I think I want the budget committee when it does its deliberation about how to spend the $16.9 million to be able to have the options of listening to the public and not having things ruled out. And this, by the way, does include some element if the budget committee sees fit to do it.

[3:58:08] It would include tax mitigation relief. Might be that the budget committee says let’s spend half of this on tax mitigation and half of it on these program areas. But I don’t want to make that decision today. And I don’t want to do anything at this council table that will preclude that flexibility later on. So this is all about flexibility. And by the way, the budget committee is the full it’s the full council. So it’s not like it’s just one committee. I want this flexibility and I want it to be broad. And I want it to be understood that there’s certain parameters to it as broad as it is. But I don’t want to create a situation where one use of it is privileged over the other one. I want the budget. I want the budget committee to be able to go into this deliberation with an open mind and have participation from the public. I don’t think it’s fair to call this spending spree. Because this budget, this budget surplus, it’s derived from expenditures that we’ve already made. So I don’t think it’s really fair to call it a spending spree.

[3:59:19] And I don’t think it’s a free-for-all. So I think in the interest of broad public participation, I would like to see the budget committee to have as much as possible. Thank you very much. Thank you. Happy very, Louis. Your worship. So we can’t have a discussion about how to apply this as tax relief at budget committee if we don’t get a business case. So I strongly encourage colleagues to support what came out of committee. Now, I’m also going to shift gears here a little bit because we referred some communications that we received to this item. So your worship through you, I’m going to take the opportunity to direct a couple of questions towards staff. Because I think that there were some inaccurate statements made in communications we received from some advocates in the community. So a number of letters all related to member organizations of pillar referred to repeated funding cuts and the London community’s grant. And in fact, through you, your worship can ask that staff indicate whether, in fact, during this multi-year budget cycle, the London community grants has been cut repeatedly or once.

[4:00:45] Ms. Smith? Yeah, go ahead. Thank you. And through your worship, there was an adjustment last year to the annual community grant funds. And it was moved from 500,000 to 250,000. But the rest has remained the same for many, many, many years. Go ahead. So, Ms. Smith, you may want to just keep standing because I’m going to send a couple more of your way. So there’s the first inaccuracy. There hasn’t been repeated cuts here. But it also referred to the fact that the reduction has created, has strained operating capacity. And through you, Chair, is my understanding that under the policies for the London community grants innovation capital stream, the applicants are not actually eligible to apply for funding for ongoing operating capacity that it is actually for one time and new programs and/or capital investments. So through you, if I can ask if Ms. Smith can confirm that operating capacity would not be able to be strained by a reduction in London community grants because it’s not applicable for operating capacity. Yes, and Ms. Smith, you’re welcome to sit down between questions because I may not let the question get to you. I get to direct them. So, but this one is for you. And you can go ahead and answer. Thank you. And through your worship, the annual grant for innovation capital and grassroots funding is not for ongoing operational funds. The innovation part is for one time new collaborative initiatives. The capital is for one time capital initiatives that fall into the funding. And the grassroots funding can be more than one year, but it is for small startup funding for new and promising initiatives. Go ahead. Thank you. I actually won’t be directing any more questions to Ms. Smith. So just so you know. So I think that that’s really important to highlight because when I talk about spending spree, I’m not talking about this council.

[4:02:54] I’m talking about community agencies that are already trying to line up and start asking for money, which in fact, while the not-for-profit sector may have some challenges, is not creation of municipal policy. It is in fact an impact of the general economy of arguably some federal and provincial policies. However, a one reduction to one grant that was for one time funding for capital or innovation is not creating strained operating capacity. That narrative is just not accurate. Now, I do have one additional question through staff, but I don’t think this one’s going to Ms. Smith. Through the audit committee, we’ve had an audit of the neighborhood decision-making program. And in fact, our auditors flagged that as a program with some risk involved in it, and that has been suspended. Can a member of our finance team or an appropriate member of our staff indicate whether the London community grants program, we’ve asked staff to report back on some recommended changes, but have our auditors taken a look at the risk involved in this program?

[4:04:08] Okay, so I’m going to allow this one. You’re starting to drift a little bit, but there was a letter specifically about the community grants. So I’ll let staff answer this one, Braski, to kind of keep it back tight to the motion before us. Thank you through your worship. So what I can confirm is that this item has been added per the council resolution to the internal audit plan that was presented and approved by council on March 4th. So that audit is actually in progress, and we’ll be coming forward to one of the future audit committees. Okay, go ahead. Thank you. So I am going to come back to the main thing that was just in reference to we’re already getting inaccurate information being submitted by advocates on how they want us to spend this money. We know that we actually have some programs within the city. We’ve asked some boards and commissions to come back with reductions. I know transits on everybody’s mind lately, especially with the news coming out of Fanshawe. This may be an opportunity to perhaps still get our tax rate down without transit necessarily finding the full 1.5% reduction that might have been necessary. I’m not looking to put any other sort of business case forward, though, because here’s what I think is really important to this. At the end of the day, this surplus belongs to all the taxpayers of London. It doesn’t belong to the not-for-profit sector. It doesn’t belong to businesses. It doesn’t belong to homeowners. It belongs to everyone. And we all know and acknowledge that taxpayers have had two years of significant increases and could really benefit from some relief.

[4:05:46] You know what tax relief on property taxes does? Not only does it benefit homeowners and leave a couple hundred dollars, perhaps more in their pocket every year, but it actually benefits not for profits who have to lease property because you know what landlords do when property taxes go up? They roll that property tax increase into the increasing costs of rent. So for those organizations who perhaps are saying we need a little help, we know property tax relief does, makes less pressure on your landlord to raise your rent to 30 seconds. So strongly encourage colleagues to support this. People need relief. And at the end of the day, those people who want to see investments made in other programs can take their $200, $300, whatever they’ve saved on their property tax bill, and they can direct it to whatever charity of choice they have. They can direct it to the Friends of the Library Foundation. They can direct it to Museum London. They can direct it to Arcade, but it’s their choice. Let’s put the money back in their pockets and let them decide whether they need it at home or whether they want to direct it to community good. Time’s up.

[4:06:51] I have Councillor Ferreira next. Thanks, Mayor. So looking at this motion, you know, I have I have two kind of on each shoulder individuals telling me things. The one on the right is saying property tax mitigation, depressed property tax, how much I’m paying. Great. I love that. But the one on the left is also quite loud and it’s telling me, you know, playing devil’s advocate, what are the other issues? And the first thing that kind of comes to my mind is looking into the future, and that is into the next council term. And I have concerns because that property tax mitigation, that depressing of the property tax rate, while it will help us for the next two years, I’m worried about what potential impacts we see on the property tax rate in the next term, because from what I understand, the operating costs, operating expenditures will still be there. So I’m worried about how much increase we’ll see on the next term. That would be both with the base budget, which we saw a pretty large base budget in the multi-year budget. When we first had this discussion, I think it was like 5.4%. And with any other new items or business cases that we’re adding on top of that. So the first thing I guess, I want to go to staff to the maybe the city treasurer, if you don’t mind, and just tell me, with respect to the operating expenditures that we’re going to be seeing, this property tax mitigation for the next two years, would that potentially lead us to without if we weren’t to make any adjustments on the next multi-year budget? Would that leave us with a higher property tax rate increase to catch up with the buffering that we’ll see for these two years?

[4:08:24] Thank you through your worship. So essentially all things being equal when you have a one-time reduction, when you remove the one-time reduction, it goes up by the amount of the reduction equally. Certainly through 2028, when we bring forward the next multi-year budget, that is going to be driven by the new council and the new strategic plan. So it’s a little bit challenging to know specifically based on what that direction is going to be, exactly what that’s going to be in terms of an impact. Certainly all things being equal, if it comes out, then it will go up by an equal amount when that one-time amount is removed. One of the things that we will certainly discuss as part of the next budget committee is the work that civic administration continues to do to look at rising opportunities and to continue to look at the mayor’s direction and council’s direction to reduce the budget on a permanent basis. So that work continues. We will have an update that will come forward on the May 22nd budget, but certainly that could cause a pressure, but we will have a complete likely a bit of a reset in terms of what the new initiatives are that will be outlined in council strategic plan that civic administration. There may be more, there may be less, it’ll all depend on what that strategic plan is ultimately approved by council. That’s fair. See, I usually find myself, and here’s an anecdote, I find myself in positions where my past self has made decisions, where my present self is always like, why did you make that decision? And I’m worried that we are going to find ourselves, those of us who will be at council and the next term, we’re going to be debating ourselves, we’re going to be in conflict with ourselves of the decision today if we do that. And that’s what I’m truly worried about. I know we got some big items, I have some big items that are going to be coming for the next term that are going to have some significant expenses. And I’m worried about the potential, you know, 1.5% property tax rate increase there just from this decision on how that will impact our decisions moving in the future. That’s a big, big concern for me. And the way, you know, this is set, this may just put us into that. Now, I’m not saying no to property tax mitigation. I am saying that there are other opportunities as well that we should also consider procedurally speaking, you know, when I saw the motion from Councillor Trusso and Councillor Frank, I thought that opened up options. But learning here, I didn’t catch the point that maybe we need something to be tied into the business case. So I see that’s kind of what the conversation was about here. We have to have property tax levy mitigation for 2026, 2027 tied into the money. So we have that conversation at the budget update. And I do want to have the conversation at the budget update. I’m just worried that when we have a business case that will specifically say that this is for property tax levy mitigation, you know, the concrete is setting at that point. And I’m worried that we’re going to be locking ourselves in. And we don’t know what’s going to come up and what’s going to arise from now until the next budget update. Like, I do know, and I’m not going to say what the items are, but there have been items that have come up to this Council recently in the last week, in the last couple of weeks that are extra expenses that we’re going to have to cover or find a way to find a way around. And that’s not including initiatives that we’ve heard Council speak to already. I would like to keep it as open as possible. And I guess just to confirm, like, we need to have something in the business case, we can’t just hold that money in the operating budget contingency reserve. The business case does have to have an item for that just to confirm that. Did I hear that correctly?

[4:12:10] Sorry. If you vote this down, it would be unallocated. Unallocated dollars would stay. My understanding is in the operating budget contingency reserve without any sort of direction or information on how to use it. So it would be available in the future. Yeah. And if you do have stuff like you can still amend the budget in any way as well. So even if there are business cases. Okay. So I will, like, I appreciate the work that the deputy mayor and the mayor has brought. You know, I, when I saw it, I was like, you know, I like this because, you know, I don’t want to pay as much property tax as the rest of London. But at the same time, just kind of putting a council hat on just thinking into the future. And I’m clearly just looking out into the future.

[4:12:58] I do find some concerns and it, you know, I don’t want to lock or tie my hands or tie council’s hands for that future discussion. So I’m going to be voting it down for now. And regardless of how this goes, I’m sure there will be more discussion and debate to be had at the budget update when this comes. So, so that’s just my concerns. That’s just kind of where I stand right now. Okay. I have Councillor Hopkins next. Thank you. Your worship. I was really on the fence on this one at committee and very supportive of the 16.3 million going into reserves and the 25 million in depth. The 16.9 million though, as it relates to tax levy mitigation was something that I was unsure of. And I felt like we were maybe putting ourselves into a corner a little bit. So, I want to thank the public. Boy, I was surprised that the information that I received from my community on where this money should be spent. And I appreciate the slight change in the wording from budget amendment to business case. But we sort of know where this is going to go if it is supported. And I know we can bring forward amendments as well when we see the business case. But I do like the opportunity of being a little bit more flexible. We’ve got many issues. I’ve heard from residents, their concerns as well. And I’ve heard from them saying, you know, let’s keep it open. So with that, I won’t be supporting three. And if it does not move forward, I’ll be supporting the motion as well coming from the other Councillors.

[4:14:53] I put myself in the list so hand over the chair to the Deputy Mayor. I will take the chair and I recognize Mayor Morgan. Yes, I’m going to just say a few words on this. So, first, on the part of the motion that I don’t think there’s any much disagreement on, the 16.6 million put in the operating budget continuously reserved to offset statutory DCs that were required to pay for the province. We still continue to have engagements with the province. They brought forward additional legislation. That lobbying effort continues with our staff and other mayors who are facing the same sort of situation by having to set aside money for statutory DC exemptions and backfill the DC funds. So we have to do that. And I appreciate that colleagues are supportive of that.

[4:15:40] I’m also very appreciative of colleagues supporting generally the 25.3 million for debt reduction. As you know, that 25.3 million is likely to generate about 3 million in avoided debt servicing payments through principal and interest, which to Councillor Ferra’s point, worrying about the future. If you pay down debt, you’re actually solving the problem a little bit already to find those savings down the road, because there’s less principal interest payments to actually catch up on. And I would say too, on the part about 16.9 million to be retained with a business case for tax mitigation, as I said at the start of the meeting, this is a business case. So how this works is a business case generates information. That business case will basically say, here’s how it would work if it were spread over these two years. Here’s how much the percentage would drop. Here’s how it would be allocated over that time period. Then I would have the decision of whether or not to take this business case and all the others and decide which ones go into the table budget. At which point you will have the full variety of business cases, whether they were included or not, to then make amendments or decisions on with information.

[4:16:51] And you can adjust them in any way that you’d like, because it’s just information in the business cases, you have the right to amend the budget under the timeframes that the legislation allows. What we have the option to do with a couple of years of runway, knowing we’re paying down debt, is we’re still engaged in a robust service review process over the next couple of years. So we couldn’t make sure that a little bit of that service review process goes to slowly backfilling some of the challenge that we might have in 2028 related to this. But as the treasurer mentioned, the 2028 multi-year budget is going to be a function of that council’s strategic priorities, of which we do not know if they will want to have many more strategic priorities or less at this point. It will be driven a lot, just like our budget was, driven a lot by those priorities in that strategic plan. But there are measures we can take over the next couple of years to slowly prepare to backfill that, as well as the other piece, because there was another piece in there previously with money from the Community Investment Reserve Fund, which was used over a time period that also has to be accounted for. So this is an option we have. It gets information. You still have the right to amend the budget later. I’m encouraging colleagues to support this. It allows us to see exactly what it is. It still reserves your right on the budget to amend it in any way that you would like in the future. Thank you, Mayor Morgan. I’ll return the chair to you.

[4:18:13] I don’t have any other speakers on the list at this time. Okay, it sounds to me like people want three separated out. So that’s sorry. It’s five leaves, three. There’s a story, Councillor. Oh, you want to speak? Yeah, go ahead. Thank you. And I just have a question, even though the Mayor, I think you answered it. But I just want to make, when we get to the fall and the change, there’s a big change for me. I wasn’t ready to support it, but based on the business case, I believe I will be now. But I just want to clarification from you. You did say that in the fall, we’ll be able to make the amendments to the business cases. So therefore, and I think I have a different view that some of my colleagues, but for example, for me, will be, for example, if there’s an opportunity for economic growth, and we don’t have the funds in our reserve funds this. So just to clarify, if there will be such a case based on what you just finished saying, there will be the opportunity for me to come forward and to put such case forward in the fall.

[4:19:36] There may be, Council, there may be business cases that have sources of funding that are generated through the regular process of the budget that you, you want to reallocate other areas for. So you have the ability to do that, just like we’ve done in the previous small-tier budgets. So yes, business cases are information. They get input in or not in the table budget. As we know previously, there are some things that were not in the table budget that then colleagues use the business case to add information to put it back in. There are other things that they was put in the table budget that then they then took out. There were some business cases where the money was adjusted. It was a million dollars. It was reduced to 500,000, let’s say. All of those things are still options available to Council. There’s no decided matter of Council on these matters if we pass this today. So yes, you can do all of those things and you can do it in many different ways. So thank you for the clarification. I will be supporting what’s in front of us because that answered my question. And again, going back to what I said a few times before, I really believe that to the best of, I maximize our opportunities, I still believe that if we didn’t have the policy, it would be the best. And on an annual basis, we would make such suggestions, such recommendations. I do understand that everyone wants to be responsible. And I’m not worried that none of us would want to pay off the debt. But I really truly believe that for us, for future Council, if there was not policy, we wouldn’t have to start with understanding the policy. I’m not going to bring it this time. I will still bring it proud before the end of the year. But for now, what the Mayor responded, I will be supporting what’s in front of us. Thank you.

[4:21:21] Okay. And I’ve got to go ahead, Councillor Layman. Thank you. I apologize, Mayor. I know you want to get going on this way. I have to speak out about this. At committee, I highlighted my concerns with taxpayers facing high prices through inflation. But what have we seen, though, in the last couple of months, I think we’ve seen bigger darker clouds, economic clouds coming on the horizon. Canada’s unemployment rate is rising due to, you know, tariff factions by our southern neighbor and other factors. We’ve seen it not pulling nationally, but locally. Property taxes are a regressive tax, whether your income goes up or down or whether you have a job or not, you’re still required to pay it. I think it’s important right now that Londoners here that this Council is aware of these economic challenges that we could be facing. I’m hoping that the waters smooth out as the tariffs be dealt with with our new administration in Ottawa. But that’s yet to be seen. We’re not making any decisions here tonight. What we are doing is indicating what we will be talking about during our budget deliberations later this year. But I think it’s important right now for Council to give this message to Londoners that we’re aware of the potential challenges financially to households that they’ll be facing now and could be facing down the road. So I fully support this. I’m glad to see that for the most part, we’re in a financially prudent plan that we’re pretty much in concert with.

[4:23:10] It’s just how are we going to handle the surplus with, you know, increased service enhancements or a return of monies back to taxpayers. So I think it’s a healthy debate and I think it’s important to put out in front of us now for those discussions ahead. Okay. That exhausts the speaker’s list. So what we’re going to do is we’re going to vote on the tax levy mitigation business case first and only that. And then we can vote on sounds like we can vote on everything else together. Okay. So Council Romans, the committee chair will move. It’s just the piece part AIV3, which is basically the piece of the tax mitigation business case. So I’ll open that for voting.

[4:24:03] Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to 3. Okay. And on the rest of the items, which is everything else contained within this report, Council Roman, as the chair will move, and we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0.

[4:24:56] And then Council Roman, I think that’s the eighth report, but you have a ninth added report from yesterday. So I’ll let you present that. Thank you. I’m presenting the ninth special meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services report. This was a special meeting. So we dealt with the spring 2025 debenture issuance update and I’m looking to move the entire report. Okay. So that entire report is on the floor unless there’s only two items, the disclosures and the one item. So the whole report is on the floor. Any discussion on that report? Okay. We’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0.

[4:25:48] That concludes my report. Thank you. I might also have you report progress. Just progress. It’s very simple. It’s progress on in-camera. Thank you. I’m happy to report that progress was made on the items we want in-camera. Okay. That’s the all of the added reports. Deferred matters. We have none inquiries. I don’t see anybody who flagged one for me. Okay. Origin of motions. We have none. Bylaws. We’re going to divide up bylaws based on what people submitted and some of the votes today. I’ll tell you how we’re going to do that in one second.

[4:26:28] Okay. Here’s how we’re going to do it. We’re going to first do the one that Councillor Vameric Bergen declared a pecuniary interest on. That’ll be the first bylaw. That’s bill 156. Then we’re going to do the one that Councillor Stevenson pulled to vote no from CPSC. Then we’re going to do the police diversity plan. Then we’re going to do the one that Councillor Hopkins wanted to vote no on from Planning Committee, the Campbell Road one.

[4:27:07] Then we’ll do everything else. Does that sound good with everybody? Okay. All right. So we’re going to start with the one that Councillor Vameric Bergen declared a pecuniary on. I’m going to ask the same mover and seconder for all of them just for to keep it going along. I have Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councillor Cuddy for this one. This is first reading. We’ll open first reading for voting. Those in the vote motion carries 14 to 0 with 1 to 2. And same mover and seconder for second reading. Any discussion on second reading? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

[4:27:47] Those in the vote motion carries 14 to 0 with 1 with 2. And same mover and seconder third and final reading. We’ll open that for voting. Those in the vote motion carries 14 to 0 with 1 with 2. Okay. The next one is bill 157. This is the Ontario Renovates Home Repair loan one. So mover and seconder. I’ll look for right Councillor Cuddy and Councillor Pribble.

[4:28:49] This is first reading. We’ll open first reading for voting. Those in the vote motion carries 14 to 1. All right. Second reading. Any discussion? Same mover and seconder. Seeing none, we’ll open this for voting. Those in the vote motion carries 14 to 1. Third and final reading. Same mover and seconder. We’ll open that for voting.

[4:29:28] Those in the vote motion carries 14 to 1. Next is the Municipal Diversity Plan for Appointments to Land and Police Services Board. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for that one. Councillor Lehman, seconded by Councillor van Mirbergen. We’ll open first reading for voting.

[4:30:05] The vote motion carries 14 to 1. All right. Second reading. Same mover and seconder. Any discussion on second reading? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Those in the vote motion carries 14 to 1. And third and final reading on this. We’ll open that for voting. Carried.

[4:31:28] 14 to 1. All right. The next is 179 which is the Ample Street property. So we’ll look for mover and a seconder for that. Deputy Mayor Lewis, Councillor Stevenson, we’ll open first reading for voting. Those in the vote motion carries 13 to 2. Second reading. Same mover and a seconder. Any debate? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

[4:32:16] Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 13 to 2. Third and final reading. Same mover and seconder. We’ll open third reading for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 13 to 2. Now everything that’s left. Mover, Councillor McAllister, seconder, Councillor Hopkins. We’ll open first reading of everything remaining for voting.

[4:33:08] Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 14 to 1. All right. Second reading of all of the remaining bills. Any debate on second reading? Same mover and seconder. Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries. Excuse me, 15 to 0. Third and final reading of the remaining items. We’ll open third reading for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0.

[4:34:23] All right. That concludes bylaws. So all that’s left is a motion to adjourn. Pardon? We did report out. Thanks for checking them. Motion to adjourn. Say sometimes I miss things. So I appreciate it. Councillor Van Mierberg and an Councillor for a move and seconded motion to adjourn. All those in favor by hand. Motion carries. All right. Thank you. We’re adjourned.