Open Council

9th Council Meeting

Open Council

9th Council Meeting

June 3, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:03 PM; it being noted that Deputy Mayor S. Lewis was in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED Councillor H. McAlister discloses a pecuniary interest in item 7, clause 2.6 of the 8th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee, having to do with the Heritage Alteration Permit Application by The Canada Life Assurance Company for 255 Dufferin Avenue, Downtown Heritage Conservation District HAP2 by indicating that he is on leave from his employer, Canada Life.

That it BE FURTHER NOTED Councillor S. Franke discloses a pecuniary interest in item 13, clause 2.12 of the 8th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee, having to do with Surplus School Sites Expression of Interest: 70 Jacqueline Street (former G.A. Wheable Adult and Continuing Education Centre) and 1366 Huron Street (severance of surplus land from St. Anne Catholic School) by indicating that her spouse is employed by the TVDSB.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

4.1    Litigation/Potential Litigation / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice      

 

A matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose with respect to the Eleanor Street Infrastructure Renewal Project. (6.1/10/ICSC)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

That Council convenes in Closed Session from 1:17 PM to 1:28 PM.

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

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

4.2    Litigation/Potential Litigation / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose with respect to the London and Middlesex Community Housing Asset Management Plan. (4.2/7/SPPC)

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

That Council convenes in Closed Session from 2:30 PM to 2:41 PM.

Motion made by J. Pribil

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That Council convenes In Closed session for the purpose of considering the following:

4.3    Litigation/Potential Litigation / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose with respect to the Approval of the Template Contribution Agreement for Highly Supportive Housing Projects at 248-256 Hill Street and 644-646 Huron Street. (4.3/9/CPSC)

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

That Council convenes in Closed Session from 4:22 PM to 4:41 PM.

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

5.1   8th Meeting held on May 13, 2025

2025-05-13 Council Minutes

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the Minutes of the 8th Meeting of the Municipal Council, held on May 13, 2025, BE APPROVED.

(14 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Trosow

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

6.3    Demolition Request - 197, 183, 179, 175 Ann Street, 86, 84 St. George Street, on Heritage Designated Property by Street George and Ann Block

  1.    C. Ryan        

  2.    L. White        

  3.    D. Hallam        

  4.    N. Pfaff        

  5.    (ADDED) S. Allen, MHBC        

  6.    (ADDED) J. Helen        

  7.    (ADDED) D. Harris        

  8.    (ADDED) S. Cox        

  9.    (ADDED) A.M. Valastro    

   

6.4    Concern Regarding an Infrastructure Renewal Project - Councillor S. Stevenson

  1.    R. Stevens, Mobility 1st    

   

6.5    (ADDED) 20 Clarke Road (Z-25038)

  1.    D. Litt        

6.6    (ADDED) 1890 and 1900 Kilgorman Way (Z-25045)

  1.    M. Moussa

       

6.7    (ADDED) Strategic Plan Implementation Update: Mid-Year 2025

  1.    Councillor S. Stevenson

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

6.1   Expropriation of Lands - Wellington Gateway Project Civil Works - Phase 2 (As the “Approving Authority”)

2025-06-03 SR Expropriation of Lands - Wellington Gateway Project - Report 2 of 3

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Pribil

That Council convene as the Approving Authority pursuant to the provisions of the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E.26, as amended, for the purpose of considering Communication No. 1 from the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure with respect to the expropriation of the lands as may be required for the project known as the Wellington Gateway Project Civil Works – Phase 2.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the expropriation of lands as may be required for the project known as the Wellington Gateway Project:

a)    the Council of The Corporation of the City of London as Approving Authority pursuant to the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, as amended, HEREBY APPROVES the proposed expropriation of lands, as described in Schedule “A”, as appended to the staff report dated June 3, 2025, in the City of London, County of Middlesex, it being noted that the reasons for making this decision are as follows:

i)    the subject lands are required by The Corporation of the City of London for the Wellington Gateway Project;

ii)    the design of the project will address the current and future transportation demands along the corridor; and

iii)    the design is in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study recommendations for the Wellington Gateway Project approved by Municipal Council at the meeting held on May 21, 2019;

b)    subject to the approval of a) above, a certificate of approval BE ISSUED by the City Clerk on behalf of the Approving Authority in the prescribed form.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Franke

That the meeting of the Approving Authority BE ADJOURNED and that Council reconvene in regular session.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

6.2   Expropriation of Lands - Wellington Gateway Project Civil Works - Phase 2 (As the “Expropriating Authority”) (Relates to Bill No. 247)

2025-06-03 SR Expropriation of Lands - Wellington Gateway Project - Report 3 of 3

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the expropriation of lands as may be required for the project known as the Wellington Gateway Project:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated June 3, 2025 as Appendix “A” being “A by-law to expropriate lands in the City of London, in the County of Middlesex, the Wellington Gateway Project: BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 2025;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take all necessary steps to prepare a plan or plans showing the Expropriated Lands and to register such plan or plans in the appropriate registry or land titles office, pursuant to the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26, within three (3) months of the Approving Authority granting approval of the said expropriation;

c)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to sign on behalf of the Expropriating Authority, the plan or plans as signed by an Ontario Land Surveyor showing the Expropriated Lands; and

d)    the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED to execute and serve the notices of expropriation required by the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26 and such notices of possession that may be required to obtain possession of the Expropriated Lands.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   8th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2025-05-21 - PEC REPORT

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 8th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of items 7 (2.6), 12 (2.11), 13 (2.12), 15 (3.1), and 17 (3.3) to 21 (3.7)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) 1st Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 1st Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning from its meeting held on April 17, 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) 2024 Canadian Home Builders’ Association Benchmarking Study

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 2024 Canadian Home Builder’s Association Benchmarking Study referencing the highlights related to the City of London, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.3) 2024 Annual Report on Building Permit Fees

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the attached report on building permit fees collected and costs of administration and enforcement of the Building Code Act and Regulation for the year 2024, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.4) Administrative Monetary Penalty System By-Law -Site Alteration (Relates to Bill No. 193) 

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated May 21, 2025 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 2025, to amend the Administrative Monetary Penalty System By-law - A-54 to include Administrative Penalties for the Site Alteration By-law.

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.5) 1364-1408 Hyde Park Road Deeming By-law (Relates to Bill No. 194) 

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 the City of London relating to the properties located at 1364-1408 Hyde Park Road:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated May 21, 2025, as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 2025, to deem Lots 72, 73, 74 and 75, Registered Plan No. 33M-219, formerly in the Township of London, and now in the City of London, County of Middlesex, not to be a registered plan of subdivision for the purposes of subsection 50(3) of the Planning Act; and,

b)    the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to provide notice of the by-law passing and undertake registration of the Deeming By-law, in accordance with the provisions in subsections 50(28) and 50(29) of the Planning Act.

it being noted that the communication dated May 15, 2025, from D. Szpakowski, HPBIA related to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (2.7) Housing Accelerator Fund – Amendment to Contribution Agreement and Additional Initiatives

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the staff report dated May 21, 2025, related to the Housing Accelerator Fund – Amendment to Contribution Agreement and Additional Initiatives, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.9   (2.8) Housing and Community Growth: Climate Emergency Action Plan Action Tracker Update

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Housing and Community Growth: Climate Emergency Action Plan Action Update BE RECEIVED; and,

b)    the listed Climate Emergency Action Plan Action Items as appended to the staff report dated May 21, 2025, as Appendix ‘A’ be DEEMED COMPLETE for future reporting on the CEAP Tracker.

Motion Passed

8.1.10   (2.9) Building Services Report - Quarter 1 2025

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the staff report dated May 21, 2025, related to the Building Services Report – Quarter 1 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.11   (2.10) Quarterly Heritage Report – Q1 2025

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the staff report dated May 21, 2025, related to the Quarterly Heritage Report – Q1 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.14   (2.13) 2nd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 2nd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning from its meeting held on May 15, 2025, BE RECEIVED;

 

it being noted that the verbal delegation from J. M. Metrailler, Chair, Community Advisory Committee on Planning and M. Wallace, with respect to this matter was received.

Motion Passed

8.1.16   (3.2) 3510-3524 Colonel Talbot Road (OZ-25033) (Relates to Bill No.’s 195 and 241) 

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 2857082 Ontario Inc. (c/o Strik, Baldinelli, Moniz Ltd.) relating to the property located at 3510-3524 Colonel Talbot

Road:

a)    the revised by-law, attached as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 2025, to amend the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP), by ADDING a site-specific policy to the Medium Density Residential policies in the North Lambeth Residential Neighbourhood; and,

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated May 21, 2025, as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No.Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016) to amend the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Residential R8 Special Provision (h-9*R8-4(76)) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(76)) Zone;

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

  •    O. Alchits, SBM Ltd.; and, 

  •    G. Dietz;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendments conform to the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, including but not limited to the North Lambeth Residential Neighbourhood policies; and,

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

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

Motion Passed

8.1.22   (3.8) 3334-3354 Wonderland Road South (OZ-25034)

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 111473 Ontario Limited (c/o MHBC) relating to the property located at 3334 & 3354 Wonderland South:

a)    that the Civic Administration BE DIRECTRED to work with the applicant on a new application; and,

b)    a nominal fee BE TAKEN for the new application to cover notice requirements only;

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

  •    L. Jamieson, Zelinka Priamo;

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

Motion Passed

8.1.23   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the Deferred Matters List BE REVEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (2.6) Heritage Alteration Permit Application by The Canada Life Assurance Company for 255 Dufferin Avenue, Downtown Heritage Conservation District (HAP25-024-L)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 21, 2025, related to the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking approval for window replacement on the heritage designated property at 255 Dufferin Avenue, within the Downtown Heritage Conservation District:

a)    the proposed replacement of the north façade (Dufferin Avenue) bronze and steel frame windows on Buildings 1 and 3, as submitted and shown in the drawings provided as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix E, Figures 14-17, BE APPROVED;

b)    the proposed replacement of the east façade (Wellington Street) bronze and steel frame windows on Buildings 1 and 3, as submitted and shown in the drawings provided as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix E, Figures 14-17, BE APPROVED;

c)    the proposed like-for-like replacement of the east (Wellington Street), west, and south façade (Queens Avenue) aluminum frame plate glass windows on Building 4, BE APPROVED;

d)    the proposed replacement of the west façade aluminum frame sash windows on Buildings 2 and 3, as submitted and shown in the drawings provided as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix E, Figures 19-23, BE APPROVED; and,

e)    the samples of the proposed replacement window finishes be provided to the Heritage Planner for review prior to installation;

it being noted that the proposed replacement of the west façade aluminum frame sash windows on Buildings 2 and 3 do not comply with the Principles, Goals & Objectives, and Design Guidelines of the Downtown Heritage Conservation District Plan, do not conform to the policy direction of The London Plan, and are not consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024).

it being further noted that a verbal delegation from D. Lecuyer, E. van der Maarel and M. Wallace, with respect to this matter was received;

it being also noted that the visual presentation as appended to the added agenda was received.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

8.1.12   (2.11) Update on Green Development Guidelines (Framework)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 21, 2025, related to the Update on Green Development Guidelines (Framework):

a)    the Update on Green Development Guidelines and Draft Terms of Reference for a Green Development Framework as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix ‘B’ BE RECEIVED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to initiate a procurement process to engage a consultant to undertake a Green Development Framework; and,

c)    the funding for the Green Development Framework BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix ‘A’; 

it being noted that the communication dated May 19, 2025, from B. Samuels related to this matter, was received.

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the Green Development Guidelines Framework BE REFERRED to Civic Administration for an additional report back to the Planning and Environment Committee on scope and feasibility following a decision on provincial legislation Bill 17, Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, 2025, currently before the Ontario Legislature;

it being noted that the communication dated May 19, 2025, from B. Samuels related to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed (8 to 6)

8.1.13   (2.12) Surplus School Sites Expression of Interest: 70 Jacqueline Street (former G.A. Wheable Adult and Continuing Education Centre) and 1366 Huron Street (severance of surplus land from St. Anne Catholic School)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 21, 2025, related to the communication from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing for the surplus school sites at 70 Jacqueline Street and 1366 Huron Street:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to express an interest in these lands for the purposes of providing the identified municipal needs of affordable housing, community facilities, and parkland; and,

b)    this report BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.1.15   (3.1) 20 Clarke Road (Z-25038) (Relates to Bill No. 240) 

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 2823522 Ontario Inc. (c/o Randy Mackay) relating to the property located at 20 Clarke Road:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated May 21, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 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 (UR1) Zone and a Restricted Service Commercial (RSC6) Zone, TO a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7()) Zone, a Holding Residential R5 Special Provision (h-8h-()*R5-7(**)) Zone, a Holding Residential R4 Special Provision (h-()R4-6()) Zone, a Residential R1 (R1-3) Zone, a Holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h-(_)*R1-1(3)) Zone, and a Urban Reserve (UR1) Zone; and,

b)    the Subdivision Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following issues through the subdivision approval process as draft plan condition(s):

i)    the applicant shall identify a consolidated area to receive Significant Woodland compensation as a condition of draft approval during detailed design which must:

A)     be a minimum of 0.73 hectares in size;

B)     be adjacent or in proximity to current Natural Heritage Feature(s);

C)     be located within the City of London; 

D)     be located within the same watershed and subwatershed as the subject lands; and,

E)     be appropriately zoned and included in the Green Space Place Type on Map 1 and Significant Woodland on Map 5 of The London

Plan to ensure protection;

ii)    the Applicant shall prepare and submit an Ecological Replacement and Compensation Plan, as a condition of draft approval during detailed design, to the satisfaction of the City of London; and,

iii)    the Applicant shall prepare and submit an Environmental Management Plan as a condition of draft approval during detailed design, to the satisfaction of the City of London;

iv)    a road access to Clarke Road from the western limit of the draft plan and that the road access arrangements be reviewed by the Applicant to determine if a full access or restricted access is permitted in this location; and,

v)    the road access be constructed as part of the proposed development at 20 Clarke Road;

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

  •    K. Crowley, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.; 

  •    N. Oliver;

  •    D. Litt; 

  •    N. Oliver; 

  •    J. Capello;

  •    S. Raspenson;

  •    Resident; 

  •    A. Valastro; 

  •    Jahtmeet;

  •    L. Gerrard; and, 

  •    V. Warwick;

it being 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, City Building, and Environmental Policies; and, 

  •    the recommended amendment facilitates residential intensification within the Built-Area Boundary and will ensure no net loss to the Natural Heritage System, if the Significant Woodland compensation measures noted above are implemented;

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 (10 to 4)

8.1.17   (3.3) 1890 & 1900 Kilgorman Way (Z-25045) (Relates to Bill No. 242)

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 Farhi Holdings Corporation relating to the property located at 1890 & 1900 Kilgorman Way, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated May 21, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 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 R1 (h- 2*R1-14) Zone, TO a Residential R1 (R1-14) Zone;

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

  •    J. Gaudet, MHBC; and, 

  •    M. Mousa;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment will facilitate an appropriate form of rural residential development with consideration of 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 (10 to 4)

8.1.18   (3.4) 168 Meadowlily Road South (OZ-9763) (Relates to Bill No.’s 196 and 243) 

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 Forever Homes Meadowlily Limited Partnership, relating to the property located at 168 Meadowlily Road South:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated May 21, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 2025, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 20216 to:

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

ii)    revise Map 4 – Active Mobility Network of The London Plan to realign the Multi-use Pathway;

iii)    add a new Specific Policy to the Neighbourhoods Place Type for Block 2 of the subject lands to permit stacked townhouses with a maximum height of 3.5 storeys on a Neighbourhood Street, for Block 3 of the subject lands to permit an apartment building with a maximum height of 8 storeys, and for Block 4 of the subject lands to permit an apartment building with a maximum height of 8 to 12 storeys; and,

iv)    add Block 2, Block 3 and Block 4 of the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas of The London Plan;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated May 21, 2025, as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 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 a Holding Urban Reserve (h- 1UR1) Zone TO Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7()) Zone, Residential R5/R6 Special Provision (R5-7()/R6-5()) Zones, Residential R4/R5/R6/R9 Special Provision (R4-4()/R5-7()/R6-5(**)/R9-5()) Zones, Residential R10 Special provision (R10-4()) Zone, Open Space OS1 and Open Space OS5 Zones;

c)    the Planning and Environment Committee BE REQUESTED to report to the Approval Authority with issues, if any, raised at the public meeting;

d)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following:

i)    provision of short-term public bicycle parking within the development of each block, integrated through the site plan process to encourage active transportation;

ii)    incorporation of street-oriented design features, with a focus on creating safe, accessible, and well-connected pedestrian pathways that enhance walkability throughout the development;

iii)    consideration for an enhanced front yard setback at the site plan stage for Block 1, to preserve and maintain the characteristic streetscape along Meadowlily Road South;

iv)    enhancement of the landscape design through the inclusion of additional tree planting for Block 1 along Meadowlily Road South;

v)    incorporate step-backs above the 3rd storey on the east, west, and south sides to enhance the pedestrian environment;

vi)    support landscaped spaces between the high-rise and mid-rise buildings, with walkways connecting the landscaped areas to improve accessibility (TLP 255, 237, 281, 282); and,

vii)    demonstrate how the proposed 8-storey apartment building in Block 3 achieves a human-scale relationship with the existing and planned context of the area along Commissioners Road East (TLP 286, 288, 289_1);

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

  • P. Matkowski, Moneith Brown Planning Consultants;

it being 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; 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 (9 to 5)

8.1.19   (3.5) 1206 Oxford Street East & 17-19 Wistow Street (Z-25036) (Relates to Bill No. 244)

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 509482 Ontario Ltd. relating to the properties located at 1206 Oxford Street East and 17-19 Wistow Street:

a)    being consistent with Policy 43_ of the Official Plan, The London Plan, for the subject lands representing 17-19 Wistow Street and a portion of 1206 Oxford Street East, BE INTERPRETED to be located within the Neighbourhoods Place Type;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated May 21, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 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 17 & 19 Wistow Street FROM a Holding Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (h-101RSC4(22)/RSC6(6)) Zone and Restricted Service Commercial (RSC4/RSC6) Zone TO a Holding Residential R5 Special Provision (h-6R5-7()) Zone and a Residential R9 Special Provision/Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (R9-7()*H25/RSC4(_)/RSC6) Zone;

c)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issues through the site plan process for the property at 1206 Oxford Street East:

i)    that the access to the property at 1206 Oxford Street East to be provided off Wistow Street;

ii)    the façade articulation that includes a variety of building materials and textures, architectural features to mitigate the overall scale of the development (e.g. projections/recesses, parapets, etc.), to visually enhance the development, and to enhance the pedestrian streetscape;

iii)    the landscaping along the street frontages to visually enhance the development, and to enhance the pedestrian environment; 

iv)    the building design which addresses the street, is sympathetic to, and supportive of, the adjacent residential development; and, 

v)     self-storage units are to be located within and accessed internally from the main building; and, 

vi)    explore opportunities for fencing, including the retention or repair of existing fencing, along mutual property lines and designated snow storage areas;

d)    the applicant BE REQUESTED to ensure existing fencing along the west property boundary of 17-19 Wistow Street is repaired, as necessary;

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

  •    M. Litwinchuk, Zelinka Priamo;

  •    H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo; 

  •    A. Van Amerongen; and, 

  •    A. Valastro;

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

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

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

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

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

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the motion be amended to read as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 509482 Ontario Ltd. relating to the properties located at 1206 Oxford Street East and 17-19 Wistow Street:

a)    being consistent with Policy 43_ of the Official Plan, The London Plan, for the subject lands representing 17-19 Wistow Street and a portion of 1206 Oxford Street East, BE INTERPRETED to be located within the Neighbourhoods Place Type;

b)    the revised proposed by-law attached as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 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 17 & 19 Wistow Street FROM a Holding Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (h-101*RSC4(22)/RSC6(6)) Zone and Restricted Service Commercial (RSC4/RSC6) Zone TO a  Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7()) Zone and a Residential R9 Special Provision/Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (R9-7()*H25/RSC4(_)/RSC6) Zone; and,

c)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issues through the site plan process for the property at 1206 Oxford Street East:

i)    that the access to the property at 1206 Oxford Street East to be provided off Wistow Street;

ii)    the façade articulation that includes a variety of building materials and textures, architectural features to mitigate the overall scale of the development (e.g. projections/recesses, parapets, etc.), to visually enhance the development, and to enhance the pedestrian streetscape;

iii)    the landscaping along the street frontages to visually enhance the development, and to enhance the pedestrian environment;

iv)    the building design which addresses the street, is sympathetic to, and supportive of, the adjacent residential development;

v)    self-storage units are to be located within and accessed internally from the main building; and,

vi)    explore opportunities for fencing, including the retention or repair of existing fencing, along mutual property lines and designated snow storage areas;

d)    the applicant BE REQUESTED to ensure existing fencing along the west property boundary of 17-19 Wistow Street is repaired, as necessary;

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

M. Litwinchuk, Zelinka Priamo;

H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo;

A. Van Amerongen; and,

A. Valastro;

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

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

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

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

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2025-D09) (3.5/8/PEC)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Item 19, clause 3.5, as amended, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 509482 Ontario Ltd. relating to the properties located at 1206 Oxford Street East and 17-19 Wistow Street:

a)    being consistent with Policy 43_ of the Official Plan, The London Plan, for the subject lands representing 17-19 Wistow Street and a portion of 1206 Oxford Street East, BE INTERPRETED to be located within the Neighbourhoods Place Type;

b)    the revised proposed by-law attached as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 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 17 & 19 Wistow Street FROM a Holding Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (h-101*RSC4(22)/RSC6(6)) Zone and Restricted Service Commercial (RSC4/RSC6) Zone TO a  Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7()) Zone and a Residential R9 Special Provision/Restricted Service Commercial Special Provision (R9-7()*H25/RSC4(_)/RSC6) Zone; and,

c)    the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following design issues through the site plan process for the property at 1206 Oxford Street East:

i)    that the access to the property at 1206 Oxford Street East to be provided off Wistow Street;

ii)    the façade articulation that includes a variety of building materials and textures, architectural features to mitigate the overall scale of the development (e.g. projections/recesses, parapets, etc.), to visually enhance the development, and to enhance the pedestrian streetscape;

iii)    the landscaping along the street frontages to visually enhance the development, and to enhance the pedestrian environment;

iv)    the building design which addresses the street, is sympathetic to, and supportive of, the adjacent residential development;

v)    self-storage units are to be located within and accessed internally from the main building; and,

vi)    explore opportunities for fencing, including the retention or repair of existing fencing, along mutual property lines and designated snow storage areas;

d)    the applicant BE REQUESTED to ensure existing fencing along the west property boundary of 17-19 Wistow Street is repaired, as necessary;

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

M. Litwinchuk, Zelinka Priamo;

H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo;

A. Van Amerongen; and,

A. Valastro;

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

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

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

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

it being acknowledged that any and all oral and written submissions from the public, related to this application have been, on balance, taken into consideration by Council as part of its deliberations and final decision regarding these matters. (2025-D09) (3.5/8/PEC)

8.1.20   (3.6) Demolition Request - 197, 183, 179, 175 Ann Street, 86, 84 St. George Street, on Heritage Designated Property by Street George and Ann Block

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated May 21, 2025, regarding the application under Section 34(1)(2) of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking to demolish the buildings known as the Kent Brewery (197 Ann Street), Brewer’s House (183 Ann Street), and workers’ cottages (179 Ann Street, 175 Ann Street, 86 St George Street, and 84 St George Street) on the heritage designated property at 197 Ann Street BE CONSENTED TO the following terms and conditions:

a)    regarding salvage that will be applied to future commemoration and interpretation for a proposed development on the subject lands:

i)    prior to demolition, the following items and materials shall be carefully removed and stored in a secure, interior space by the owner for future reuse in the proposed development on the subject lands, in accordance with the minimum requirements of Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Standard Z-7812 Deconstruction of Buildings and their Relocated Parts and the recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment (MHBC 2021) and Final Documentation, Salvage and Commemoration Plan (MHBC 2025):

A)    two (2) light fixtures on the Kent Brewery building at 197 Ann Street; 

B)    two (2) wood windows, including frames from the existing building at 197 Ann Street; 

C)    double-leaf door and carved jamb moulding from the principal entrance on the north  façade of the Brewer’s House at 183 Ann Street; 

D)    stained glass transom above the principal entrance on the north façade of the Brewer’s House at 183 Ann Street; and,  

E)    wood panelled secondary entrance door on the east façade of the Brewer’s House at 183 Ann Street;

ii)    during demolition, the following items and materials shall be carefully removed and stored in a secure, interior space by the owner for future reuse in the proposed development on the subject lands, in accordance with the minimum requirements of Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Standard Z-7812 Deconstruction of Buildings and their Relocated Parts and the recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment (MHBC 2021) and Final Documentation, Salvage and Commemoration Plan (MHBC 2025):

A)    stone masonry from the Kent Brewery building at 197 Ann Street; 

B)    wood corbels, modillions, and dentil moulding, and other wood detailing including the east gable and west bay window from the exterior of the Brewer’s House at 183 Ann Street; 

C)    wooden banister and newel post from the interior of the Brewer’s House at 183 Ann Street; 

D)    a minimum of 900 square feet of brick masonry that is of suitable quality and finish to accomplish the proposed commemorative installations shall be salvaged from the existing buildings on the subject property, i. A minimum of 250 square feet of brick masonry salvaged from the Kent Brewery building at 197 Ann Street is required;

b)    regarding commemoration and interpretation:

i)     the following commemorative and interpretive features shall be installed by the owner at the completion of construction and prior to the release of any securities held by the City of London in conjunction with the Development Agreement required for the proposed development on the subject lands:

A)    commemorative and interpretive concepts and text be revised, to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning and Development, to include direct and specific reference to the Kent Brewery, the Brewer’s House, and the workers’ cottages, as well as their interrelationship as a Victorian industrial complex; 

B)    at least one interpretive panel and a reproduction of the circa 1905 photograph of the Kent Brewery as a perforated and illuminated stainless-steel panel be installed on the crash wall of the north elevation of the proposed building, along Ann Street, in a location accessible and visible to the public as shown as appended to the above mentioned staff report as Appendix “E”; 

C)    reclaimed brick masonry be installed in the internal courtyard as shown in the above-mentioned staff report as Appendix “E”; 

D)    reclaimed brick masonry, as well as light fixtures, double-leaf doors, and transom, be installed as part of the entrance along the west elevation of the proposed building as shown in the above-noted staff report as Appendix “E”; 

E)    at least one interpretive panel be installed on the west elevation of the proposed building, in a location accessible and visible to the public; and, 

F)    items and materials salvaged from the existing buildings be prioritized for reuse in the proposed building;

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

  •    a communication dated May 13, 2025, from ACO London Region; 

  •    a communication dated May 20, 2025, from M. Whalley; 

  •    a communication dated May 20, 2025, from J. Reaney; and, 

  •    a communication dated May 19, 2025, from J. Fyfe-Millar;

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

  •    V. Hicks, MHBC Planning; and,

  •    A. Valastro;

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 (11 to 3)

8.1.21   (3.7) 299-307 Sarnia Road (Z-25039) (Relates to Bill No. 245) 

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 Kimko Inc. and 20223388 Holdings Inc. (c/o Zelinka Priamo) relating to the properties located at 299-307 Sarnia Road:

a)    the revised by-law, attached as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016) to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Residential R1 (R1-10) Zone TO a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-8*R9-7(_)*H20 Zone); to include an h-101 holding provision - Public Site Plan Non- Statutory meeting;

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

i)    the lay-by is to be located fully on the subject lands with no encroachments into the City right-of-way and within 15 metres of the main building entrance;

ii)    provide connections from the ground floor units to the public sidewalk along Sarnia Road and provide active uses are at grade along the majority of the building frontage; and,

iii)    utilize the natural grade variation of the site to integrate parking that appears as underground at the rear;

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

  •    K. Crowley, Zelinka Priamo;

  •    S. Levin; 

  •    H. Xie; and, 

  •    J. M. Metrailler;

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

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.2   7th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2025-05-27 SPPC Report 7

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 7th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of items 3 (2.2) and 7 (4.2)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by C. Rahman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) 2025 Corporate Asset Management Plan Progress Review

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the report regarding 2025 Corporate Asset Management Plan Progress Review BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.3) Request for a Shareholder’s Meeting - Housing Development Corporation, London

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2024 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for the Housing Development Corporation, London (HDC):

a)      the 2024 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for the Housing Development Corporation, London (HDC) 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 the Housing Development Corporation, London (HDC) 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 the Housing Development Corporation, London (HDC) and to invite the President and CEO and the Board/Chair to attend at 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 May 12, 2025, from M. Feldberg, President and CEO, Housing Development Corporation, London, with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (3.1) London Hydro Inc. - 2024 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder Annual Resolutions (Relates to Bill No. 183)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, the following actions be taken with respect to London Hydro Inc.:

a)   the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated May 27, 2025 as Appendix “A”, entitled “A by-law to ratify and confirm the Annual Resolutions of the Shareholder of London Hydro Inc.”  BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 2025;

b)   the presentation by Y. Semsedini, CEO and C. Graham, Board Chair, London Hydro Inc., BE RECEIVED;

c)    the Vision 2030 - Five-Year Strategic Plan BE RECEIVED;

d)    the Summary of the 2024 Financial Results BE RECEIVED;

e)    the 2024 Annual Report on Finance BE RECEIVED;

f)     the communication regarding the Draft Shareholder Resolution BE RECEIVED;

g)    the communication dated May 12, 2025 from C. Graham, Chair, Board of Directors, London Hydro Inc. regarding the recommendation of appointment BE RECEIVED; and

h)    that Paul M. Madden BE APPOINTED to the London Hydro Board of Directors, Second Class, for the term ending December 31, 2025.

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (4.1) London Hydro Proposed Amendments to the Shareholder Declaration

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the communication dated May 15, 2025 from C. Graham, Chair, Board of Directors, London Hydro Inc. regarding the Proposed Amendments to the Shareholders Declaration BE REFERRED to Civic Administration and to report back at a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee.

Motion Passed

8.2.8   (4.3) Notification of Removal of a Board of Director from Eldon House

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the following actions be taken with respect to Eldon House Board of Directors:

a)  the communication dated May 8, 2025 from J. O’Neil, Chair, Eldon House Board of Directors BE RECEIVED;

b)  the appointment to the Eldon House Board of Directors of Devinder Luthra BE RESCINDED; 

c)  a vacancy on the Eldon House Board of Directors BE DECLARED; 

d)  the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to advertise in the usual manner to solicit applications for appointment to Eldon House with applications to be brought forward to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for consideration.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) Strategic Plan Implementation Update: Mid-Year 2025

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the report regarding 2025 Mid-Year Strategic Plan Implementation Update BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

8.2.7   (4.2) 2025 London and Middlesex Community Housing Asset Management Plan

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 2025 London and Middlesex Community Housing Asset Management Plan:

a)    the report BE RECEIVED for information purposes; and

b)    the “2025 London and Middlesex Community Housing Asset Management Plan”, as appended to the staff report dated May 27, 2025 as Appendix “A”, BE APPROVED in accordance with Ontario Regulation 588/17.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

8.3   10th Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee

2025-05-26 ICSC Report 10

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 10th Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of items 5 (2.4), 6 (2.5), 13 (4.1), 14 (4.2), and 16 (5.2)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by C. Rahman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) Standing Committee Meetings and Annual Meeting Calendar

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the annual meeting calendar for the period January 1, 2026 to December 31, 2026 (as appended to the staff report dated May 26, 2025 as Appendix “A”), BE APPROVED; it being understood that adjustments to the calendar may be required from time to time in order to accommodate special/additional meetings or changes to governing legislation.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) Enwave Update - London District Energy

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the report dated May 26, 2025, titled “Enwave Update – London District Energy” BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.3) Junior Achievement Centre, 15 Wharncliffe Road North

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 roof replacement of the Junior Achievement Centre, 15 Wharncliffe Road North:

a)    the report BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the funding for this procurement BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated May 26, 2025 as Appendix “A”;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to negotiate an updated modernized agreement between the City and the Junior Achievement of Southwestern Ontario Inc.; and

d)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all actions necessary to implement these recommendations.

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (2.6) 2024 Parkland Reserve Fund Annual Financial Statement and Reporting of Former Section 37 Planning Act (Bonusing) Funds

Motion made by C. Rahman

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

a)    the 2024 Parkland Reserve Fund annual financial statement BE RECEIVED for information in accordance with section 42 (17) of the Planning Act, 1990;

b)    the 2024 reporting of former Section 37 bonusing funds held by the City of London BE RECEIVED for information; and

c)    the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports BE DIRECTED to make the 2024 Parkland Reserve Fund annual financial statement and reporting of former Section 37 Planning Act (Bonusing) funds still held available to the public on the City of London website.

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (2.7) Agreement Between the City of London and Donald Jones Management Services Inc. for Management of Centennial Hall (Relates to Bill No. 185)

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 May 26, 2025 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 2025 to:

a)    amending agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Donald Jones Management Services Inc. (the “Amending Agreement”) BE APPROVED to:

i)     extend the term of the agreement to December 31, 2030;

ii)    amend Schedule “A” Regular Personnel Costs or Contract Service of the Agreement; and,

iii)    amend Schedule “B” – Centennial Hall Rates and Requirements of the Agreement;

b)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the agreement approved in a), above.

Motion Passed

8.3.9   (2.9) Contract Award: Tender RFT-2025-087-Bradley Avenue Extension and White Oaks Tributary Complete Corridor from Wharncliffe Road South to Jalna Boulevard (West Leg) 

Motion made by C. Rahman

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the award of contract for the Bradley Avenue Extension & White Oaks Tributary Complete Corridor project, from Wharncliffe Road South to Jalna Boulevard (RFT-2025-087):

a)    the bid submitted by J-AAR Civil Infrastructures Limited, at its tendered price of $21,135,965.36, excluding HST, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by J-AAR Civil Infrastructures Limited was the lowest of four bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements, in accordance with Section 13.2 of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    WSP Canada Inc. BE AUTHORIZED to complete the contract administration and construction inspection for this project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $1,937,031.96, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

c)    the contract with Montrose Environmental Solutions Canada Inc. BE INCREASED by $139,980.00 to a total amended value of $639,425.00, excluding HST, for additional consultant tasks including coordination for tender preparation, construction support, and post-construction flood line mapping, in accordance with Section 20.3 (e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

d)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to approve Memorandums of Understanding between the Corporation of the City of London and private property owners, in relation to the cost-sharing of servicing and wetland compensation works contained within the Bradley Avenue Extension & White Oaks Tributary Complete Corridor project;

e)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated May 26, 2025 as Appendix “A”;

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

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

h)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract for the material to be supplied and the work to be done relating to this project (RFT-2025-087); and

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

Motion Passed

8.3.10   (2.10) 2024 Annual Update on Budweiser Gardens

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the 2024 Annual Report on Budweiser Gardens, as appended to the staff report dated May 26, 2025 as ‘Appendix B’, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.11   (2.11) Procurement Strategy: Prioritizing Canadian Businesses

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the Procurement Strategy: Prioritizing Canadian Business report BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.12   (2.8) Appointment of Consulting Engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program: Round 5

Motion made by C. Rahman

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the appointment of consulting engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program to carry out consulting services for the identified projects, at the upset amounts identified below, in accordance with the estimate on file, and in accordance with Section 15.2(e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy:

i)    Archibald, Gray & McKay Engineering Ltd. BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the pre-design, and detailed design for the reconstruction of Ontario Street, from Central Avenue to Dufferin Avenue, in the total amount of $268,400.00 (including contingency), excluding HST;

ii)    Archibald, Gray & McKay Engineering Ltd. BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the pre-design, and detailed design for the reconstruction of Southdale Road East, from Wellingsboro Road to Willow Drive, in the total amount of $266,888.00 (including contingency), excluding HST;

iii)    GEI Consultants Canada Ltd. BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the pre-design, and detailed design for the reconstruction of Dearness Drive, from Bradley Avenue to Wellington Road, in the total amount of $176,500.50 (including contingency), excluding HST;

iv)    Development Engineering (London) Limited BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the pre-design, and detailed design for the reconstruction of Edinburgh Street, from Foster Avenue to east limit, in the total amount of $235,284.50 (including contingency), excluding HST;

v)    Spriet Associates London Limited BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the pre-design, and detailed design for the reconstruction of Paul Street, from Lorraine Avenue to Wharncliffe Road North, in the total amount of $240,752.60 (including contingency), excluding HST;

vi)    Arcadis Professional Services (Canada) Inc. BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the pre-design, and detailed design for the reconstruction of Oxford Street West, from Capulet Walk to 100 metres west of Wonderland Road North, in the total amount of $181,567.10 (including contingency), excluding HST;

a)     on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions taken with respect to the appointment of consulting engineers for the Infrastructure Renewal Program to carry out consulting services for the identified projects, at the upset amounts identified below, in accordance with the estimate on file, and in accordance with Section 15.2(g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy:

i)    Development Engineering (London) Limited BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the resident inspection and contract administration for the 2025 Infrastructure Renewal Program Florence Street, York Street and Eleanor Street project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $618,827.00 including 10% contingency, excluding HST;

ii)    AECOM Canada ULC BE APPOINTED consulting to complete the pre-design, and detailed design for the reconstruction of Grand Avenue, from Wellington Road to east limit, in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $212,242.00, including 10% contingency, excluding HST:

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated May 26, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’;

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.3.15   (5.1) Proposed Road Rehabilitation Project - Gainsborough and Hyde Park - Councillor C. Rahman

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the rehabilitation project on Gainsborough Road:

a)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consult with the community regarding the proposed changes to the stretch of Gainsborough Road; and

b)  the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to prepare a new rendering that supports maintaining the (2) two eastbound lanes on Gainsborough Road;

it being noted that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee received a communication from Councillor C. Rahman with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.4) 2025 Reserve and Reserve Fund Monitoring and Housekeeping Report (Relates to Bill No.’s 184, 191 and 192)

Motion made by C. Rahman

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

a)    the 2025 Reserve and Reserve Fund Monitoring and Housekeeping Report BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated May 26, 2025 as “Appendix C”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 2025, to amend By-Law No. A.-8409-258 being “A by-law to establish the London Police Service Reserve Fund”;

c)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated May 26, 2025 as “Appendix D”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 2025, to amend By-law No. A.-8413-262 being “A by-law to establish the DC Incentive Program - Property Tax Supported Reserve Fund”; and

d)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated May 26, 2025 as “Appendix E”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 2025, being “A by-law to establish the Community Efficiency Retrofit Programs Reserve Fund.”

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.3.6   (2.5) 2024 Annual Report on Development Charges Reserve Funds and Development Charges Monitoring

Motion made by C. Rahman

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

a)    the 2024 Annual Report on Development Charges Reserve Funds and Development Charges Monitoring BE RECEIVED for information in accordance with section 43 (1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, which requires the City Treasurer to provide a financial statement relating to Development Charges By-law and associated reserve funds; and

b)    the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports BE DIRECTED to make the 2024 Annual Report on Development Charges Reserve Funds and Development Charges Monitoring available to the public on the City of London website to fulfill Council’s obligation under section 43 (2.1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.3.13   (4.1) 2025 Council Policy Review (Relates to Bill No.’s 186 to 190, 197 to 237)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken with respect to the Policy for the Establishment and Maintenance of Council Polices:

a)    the proposed by-law (as appended to the staff report dated May 26, 2025 as Appendix “B”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 2025, to introduce a new Council Policy entitled Centennial Hall Policy;

b)    the proposed by-laws (as appended to the staff report as Appendices C1 to C43) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 2025, to make the specified amendments to the following Council Policies: 

  1.    Access and Privacy Policy

  2.    Accessibility Policy

  3.    Annual Assessment of Underutilized Light Vehicles Policy

  4.    Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression Policy

  5.    Appointment of Council Members to Standing Committees of Council and Various Civic Boards and Commissions Policy

  6.    Appointment of Deputy Mayor Policy

  7.    Assessment Growth Policy 

  8.    Benefits for Survivors of Employees Killed on the Job Policy

  9.    City of London Community Suite Policy

  10.    City of London Days at the Budweiser Gardens Policy

  11.    City of London Records Management Policy

  12.    Collective Bargaining Activities Policy

  13.    Community Arts Investment Program Policy

  14.    Community Engagement Policy

  15.    Corporate Identity Policy

  16.    Corporate Plaques and Recognitions Policy

  17.    Council Members’ Expense Account Policy

  18.    Employee Service Recognition and Retirement Policy

  19.    Encroachment Policy

  20.    Flags at City Hall Policy

  21.    Free of Fear Services Policy

  22.    General Policy for Advisory Committees

  23.    Illumination of City of London Buildings and Amenities Policy

  24.    Investment Policy

  25.    Issuance of Technology Equipment to Council Policy

  26.    Leasing and Licensing of City Owned Land Policy

  27.    Mayor’s Expenses Policy

  28.    Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List Policy

  29.    Policy for the Establishment and Maintenance of Council Policies

  30.    Promotion of Products or Services to City Employees Policy

  31.    Property Enquiries to Board of Education Policy

  32.    Property for Capital Works Projects Policy

  33.    Public Access During Council and Standing Committee Meetings Policy - including an amendment in section 4.2.5 to replace the word “Protest” with “Intentional Disruption”

  34.    Public Art Monument Policy

  35.    Public Notice Policy

  36.    Queen Elizabeth Scholarship Policy

  37.    Real Estate Service Policy

  38.    Request to Waive or Reduce Facility Rental Fees Policy

  39.    Rzone Policy

  40.    Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy

  41.    Selection Process Policy for Appointing Members to Committee, Civic Boards and Commissions

  42.    Use of City of London Resources for Election Purposes Policy

  43.    Use of the City Hall Cafeteria Policy

c)    the proposed by-laws (as appended to the staff report as Appendices D1 to D3) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on June 3, 2025, to repeal the following Council Policies:

  1.    Media Protocols Policy

  2.    Soliciting Funds in City Hall Policy

  3.    Use of Civic Square by Centennial Hall Events Policy;

d)    By-law No. CPOL.-54-286, being the “Appointment of Deputy Mayor Policy” BE REFERRED to the Governance Working Group for review;

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to amend By-law No. CPOL.-231-555, being the “Policy for the Establishment and Maintenance of Council Policies” for the next Council Policy review cycle to include a requirement to review Council Policies using a Climate Lens;

f)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consult with the school boards with respect to the applicability of By-law No. CPOL.-17-213, being the “Queen Elizabeth Scholarship Policy”, extending to Conseil Scolaire Catholique Providence and Conseil Scolaire Viamonde and bring forward any necessary changes to the Policy to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee; and 

g)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to:

i)       continue to work with London Transit Commission and London Public Library to determine appropriate metrics for which these agencies may apply for assessment growth funding;

ii)      review and report back to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee on amendments to By-law No. CPOL.-47-243, being the “Assessment Growth Policy”, if necessary, to clarify eligibility criteria pertaining to the pressures of a growing city.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.3.14   (4.2) Bad Debts - Aspire Food Group - Councillor S. Stevenson

Motion made by C. Rahman

That it BE NOTED that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated May 15, 2025 from Councillor S. Stevenson with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

8.3.16   (5.2) Concern Regarding an Infrastructure Renewal Project - Councillor S. Stevenson

Motion made by C. Rahman

That it BE NOTED that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated May 15, 2025 from Councillor S. Stevenson with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Trosow

That pursuant to section 13.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, the Council decision with respect to item 16 (5.2) having to do with Councillor Stevenson’s Communication BE RECONSIDERED to provide for Councillor Stevenson to recast her vote.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That it BE NOTED that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated May 15, 2025 from Councillor S. Stevenson with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

8.4   9th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2025-05-20 CPSC Report

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 9th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of items 6 (4.1), 7 (4.2), and 8 (4.3).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the Council recess at this time, for 15 minutes.

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 3:27 PM and reconvenes at 3:47 PM.

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) 1st Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 1st Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on April 24, 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.2) 1st Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 1st Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on May 8, 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.3) Single Source SS-2024-074 Bulk White Field Marking Paint

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated May 20, 2025, related to Single Source SS-2024-074 Bulk White Field Marking Paint:

a)    the proposal from Simplistic Lines, 5358 Line 34, Stratford, Ontario, for the provision of Bulk White Field Marking Paint for the City of London sports fields, at an estimated annual purchase value of $58,000 (HST excluded), for one (1) year period, with four (4) optional renewal years BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that this is a single source contract as per the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy Section 14.4 e), as the required goods and/or services are being supplied by a particular supplier(s) having specialized knowledge, skills, expertise or experience in the provision of the service;

b)    subject to approval of a) above, the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this contract; and,

c)    the approval and authorization provided for in a) and b) above, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or having a Purchase Order, or contract record relating to the subject matter of this approval. (2025-F17)

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (2.4) London Fire Department Fire Master Plan Annual Update

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the staff report dated May 20, 2025 related to the London Fire Department Fire Master Plan Annual Update, BE RECEIVED. (2025-P16)

Motion Passed

8.4.9   WITHDRAWN - (4.4) 2023-2024 Long-Term Care Home Service Accountability Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London (Dearness Home) and Ontario Health - Declaration of Compliance 2024

It being noted that the staff report, dated May 20, 2025, with respect to the 2023-2024 Long-Term Care Home Service Accountability Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London (Dearness Home) and Ontario Health - Declaration of Compliance 2024, was withdrawn from the agenda by the Civic Administration.

8.4.6   (4.1) Whole of Community System Response Overview

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the communication from Councillor S. Stevenson, dated May 12, 2025, with respect to the Whole of Community System Response Overview, BE RECEIVED and no further action be taken.

Motion Passed (10 to 3)

8.4.7   (4.2) Memo - Affordable and Supportive Housing Agreement Templates (Relates to Bill No. 181)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the memo, dated May 20, 2025, related to Affordable and Supportive Housing Agreement Templates:

a)         the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted memo, BE INTRODUCED at Municipal Council to be held on June 3, 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 with the exception of any amendments that would provide funding for highly supportive housing;

iii)        authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute Contribution Agreements approved pursuant to section 1 of the above-noted bylaw, as amended, pursuant to section 2 of the above-noted by-law with affordable housing project owners awarded funding through procurement processes;

iv)        authorize the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community 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, Housing and Community 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 memo; 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. Lehman

That the motion BE AMENDED to include a new part that reads as follows:

The Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to seek Council approval for contribution agreements, including loan agreements under the Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan, for any highly supportive housing projects.

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Item 7, clause 4.2, as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the memo, dated May 20, 2025, related to Affordable and Supportive Housing Agreement Templates:

a)         the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted memo, BE INTRODUCED at Municipal Council to be held on June 3, 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 with the exception of any amendments that would provide funding for highly supportive housing;

iii)        authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute Contribution Agreements approved pursuant to section 1 of the above-noted bylaw, as amended, pursuant to section 2 of the above-noted by-law with affordable housing project owners awarded funding through procurement processes;

iv)        authorize the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community 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, Housing and Community 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 memo; 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)

d)        the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to seek Council approval for contribution agreements, including loan agreements under the Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan, for any highly supportive housing projects.

8.4.8   (4.3) RFP-2024-227 Approval of the Template Contribution Agreement for Highly Supportive Housing Projects at 248-256 Hill Street and 644-646 Huron Street (Relates to Bill No. 182)

At 4:49 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor E. Peloza in the Chair. 

At 4:51 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

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 May 20, 2025, related to RFP-2024-227 Approval of the Template Contribution Agreement for Highly Supportive Housing Projects at 248-256 Hill Street and 644-646 Huron Street:

a)    a grant of $1,485,000, in the form of a forgivable loan, to the Canadian Mental Health Association Thames Valley Addiction & Mental Health Services for the development and operation of 33 highly supportive housing units at 248-256 Hill Street be AUTHORIZED AND APPROVED;

b)    a grant of $3,690,000, in the form of a forgivable loan, to the Canadian Mental Health Association Thames Valley Addiction & Mental Health Services for the development and operation of 82 highly supportive housing units at 644-646 Huron Street BE AUTHORIZED AND APPROVED;

c)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at Municipal Council on June 3, 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 above-noted Contribution Agreement;

iii)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute Contribution Agreements approved under section 1 of this by-law as amended pursuant to section 2 of this by-law with eh Canadian Mental Health Association Thames Valley Addition & Mental Health Services for highly supportive housing projects at 644-646 Huron Street and 248-256 Hill Street; and,

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

d)    the financing for the grants to the Canadian Mental Health Association BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report; and,

e)    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 highly supportive housing units included within their project to a maximum of $45,000 per additional unit, subject to the confirmation of available funding. (2025-S11)

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the motion BE AMENDED to include a new part that reads as follows:

The Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to include provisions in all future agreements related to forgivable loans for highly supportive housing that allow Council to require repayment of the loan or impose other consequences if the agreed-upon operating standards are not being met.

Motion Failed (4 to 10)

8.5   2nd Report of the Budget Committee

2025-05-22 Budget Report 2

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 2nd Report of the Budget Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of item 4 (4.1).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.1) 2026 Budget Request - D. Trentowsky, Chair and T. Annett, General Manager, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the communication dated April 29, 2025 from D. Trentowsky, Chair and T. Annett, General Manager, Upper Thames River Conservation Authority regarding the 2026 Budget Request BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.2) Update on Budget Engagement with Agencies, Boards and Commissions - Budget Chair/Councillor E. Peloza

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the communication dated May 9, 2025 from Budget Chair/Councillor E. Peloza with respect to an updated on budget engagement with agencies, boards and commissions BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (4.2) Budget 2026 Cost Savings Opportunities - London Economic Development Corporation (LEDC) Review - Councillor S. Stevenson

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the communication dated May 11, 2025 from Councillor S. Stevenson regarding the 2026 Budget cost saving opportunities regarding London Economic Development Corporation (LEDC) review BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (4.3) Budget 2026 Cost Savings Opportunities - Cycling Lane Projects - Councillor S. Stevenson

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the communication dated May 11, 2025 from Councillor S. Stevenson with respect to the 2026 Budget cost savings opportunities regarding cycling lane projects BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the Budget Committee received communications from the following individuals with respect to this matter:

V. Lubrano lll;

London Cycle Link Board of Directors;

S. Rutkowski;

M. Sloane, Professor, English Communications, School of Language and Liberal Studies, Fanshawe College;

H. Joseph;

C. Forsythe;

H. Tallman;

A. Thompson;

N. Roberts and the rest of our biking family;

M. Bernais;

J. Buscema;

A. Celere;

J. Belanger, President, Storm Stayed Brewing Company;

M. Pereira;

K. Costello;

M. Wickett;

S. Allison;

S. Middleton;

M. Hopkins;

T. Gervais;

C. Taylor;

M. Murty;

T. Lardner;

B. Donahue-Power;

M. Gualtieri;

M. Wilson;

G. Soth;

T. Shaw;

I. McGrath;

J. Weller;

C. Branton;

P. Morris;

P. King Shannon;

Kaluyu’ti (DarkN8V), Everything Indigenous Education Awareness Stream;

C. Tanner-Slater;

M. O’Neill;

A. Suksi;

C. Dagandan;

L. de Looze;

F. Durand;

S. Durand;

S. Brooks;

M. Zettler;

P. King;

A. Sharp;

T. Boere;

J. Bothwell;

A. Serrano Rodriguez;

T. Pulinec;

E. Hrinivich;

R. Skinner;

K. Kellestine;

K. Rhodes;

G. Rhodes;

J. Schuurman;

A. Tedford;

S. Murillo;

S. Wild;

C. Richards;        

Nathan;        

A. Carr;        

S. Murphy;        

S. C. McWatt, Assistant Professor, School of Kinesiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Western University;        

M. Adler;       

A. McClenaghan, Bicycle Cafe;        

C. Murphy;       

B. Ball;       

D. Isaac; and        

MA Hodge and B. Morrison, Climate Action London.

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (4.1) 2026 Annual Budget Update - Status Update

Motion made by E. Peloza

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

a)    the report providing an update on development of the 2026 Annual Budget Update and the budget reduction options identified to date BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue to include identified budget right-sizing opportunities in a business case for inclusion in the Mayor’s proposed 2026 Budget Update; 

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to proceed with implementing the user fee changes for the revenue generation opportunity identified in Appendix “A”, as appended to the staff report dated May 22, 2025, and to bring forward the corresponding business case for inclusion in the Mayor’s proposed 2026 Budget Update; and

d)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to exclude the following business cases in the 2026 Budget Update:

i)    Appendix B, Ref # - 1    Roadway Maintenance – Reduced Summer Sidewalk Maintenance

ii)   Appendix B, Ref # - 2    Roadway Planning & Design – Reduced Road Network Improvements

iii)  Appendix B, Ref # - 3    Urban Forestry - Reduction in Pathway and Trail Edge Brush Mulching

iv)  Appendix B, Ref # - 5    Aquatics – Closure of 5 Wading Pools

v)   Appendix C, Ref # - 2    Recycling & Composting - Stop Multi-Residential Green Bin Cart Pilot Project and Future Expansion

vi)  Appendix C, Ref # - 3    Recycling & Composting - Stop Collecting Blue Box Materials from Non-eligible Sources (NES)

vii)  Appendix C, Ref # - 4    Parks & Horticulture - Maintenance of Local Road Traffic Circles, Gateway Features and Cul-de-sac Islands; 

it being noted that the Budget Committee received a communication dated May 18, 2025 from C. Butler with respect to this matter.

Motion made by E. Peloza

d)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to exclude the following business cases in the 2026 Budget Update:

ii)   Appendix B, Ref # - 2    Roadway Planning & Design – Reduced Road Network Improvements

v)   Appendix C, Ref # - 2    Recycling & Composting - Stop Multi-Residential Green Bin Cart Pilot Project and Future Expansion

vi)  Appendix C, Ref # - 3    Recycling & Composting - Stop Collecting Blue Box Materials from Non-eligible Sources (NES)

Motion Failed (7 to 7)

Motion made by E. Peloza

d)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to exclude the following business cases in the 2026 Budget Update:

i)    Appendix B, Ref # - 1    Roadway Maintenance – Reduced Summer Sidewalk Maintenance

Motion Passed (9 to 5)

Motion made by E. Peloza

d)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to exclude the following business cases in the 2026 Budget Update:

iii)  Appendix B, Ref # - 3    Urban Forestry - Reduction in Pathway and Trail Edge Brush Mulching

iv)  Appendix B, Ref # - 5    Aquatics – Closure of 5 Wading Pools

vii)  Appendix C, Ref # - 4    Parks & Horticulture - Maintenance of Local Road Traffic Circles, Gateway Features and Cul-de-sac Islands;

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

At 5:03 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor C. Rahman in the Chair. 

At 5:04 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by E. Peloza

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

a)    the report providing an update on development of the 2026 Annual Budget Update and the budget reduction options identified to date BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue to include identified budget right-sizing opportunities in a business case for inclusion in the Mayor’s proposed 2026 Budget Update;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to proceed with implementing the user fee changes for the revenue generation opportunity identified in Appendix “A”, as appended to the staff report dated May 22, 2025, and to bring forward the corresponding business case for inclusion in the Mayor’s proposed 2026 Budget Update; and

it being noted that the Budget Committee received a communication dated May 18, 2025 from C. Butler with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Item 4, clause 4.1, as amended, reads as follows:

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

a)    the report providing an update on development of the 2026 Annual Budget Update and the budget reduction options identified to date BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue to include identified budget right-sizing opportunities in a business case for inclusion in the Mayor’s proposed 2026 Budget Update;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to proceed with implementing the user fee changes for the revenue generation opportunity identified in Appendix “A”, as appended to the staff report dated May 22, 2025, and to bring forward the corresponding business case for inclusion in the Mayor’s proposed 2026 Budget Update; and

d)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to exclude the following business cases in the 2026 Budget Update:

i)    Appendix B, Ref # - 1    Roadway Maintenance – Reduced Summer Sidewalk Maintenance

iii)  Appendix B, Ref # - 3    Urban Forestry - Reduction in Pathway and Trail Edge Brush Mulching

iv)  Appendix B, Ref # - 5    Aquatics – Closure of 5 Wading Pools

vii)  Appendix C, Ref # - 4    Parks & Horticulture - Maintenance of Local Road Traffic Circles, Gateway Features and Cul-de-sac Islands;

it being noted that the Budget Committee received a communication dated May 18, 2025 from C. Butler with respect to this matter.

9.   Added Reports

That it BE NOTED that Councillor C. Rahman presented the 9th 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

Councillor S. Franke enquires with respect to the position of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) on Bill No. 5, Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act. Councillor A. Hopkins provides information on AMO’s position.

12.   Emergent Motions

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That pursuant to section 20.1 of the Council Procedure By-law, leave be granted to allow Councillor S. Trosow to move a motion related to AMO’s submission related to Bill 5, Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025.

Motion Failed (9 to 5)

13.   By-laws

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 181 and 182 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Second Reading of Bill No. 181 and 182 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 181 and 182 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 183 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Second Reading of Bill No. 183 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 183 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 184 and 192  BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Second Reading of Bill No. 184 and 192  BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 184 and 192  BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 198 and 217 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Second Reading of Bill No. 198 and 217  BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

That Third and Enactment of Bill No. 198 and 217  BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 240 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Second Reading of Bill No. 240  BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 240  BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 196 and 243 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 196 and 243 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 196 and 243 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 242 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Second Reading of Bill No. 242 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 242 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 246 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Second Reading of Bill No. 246 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 246 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 247 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Second Reading of Bill No. 247 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 247 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 180 to Revised Bill No. 245, excluding Bill No.’s 181 to 184, 192, 196, 198, 217, 240, 242, and 243, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 180 to Revised Bill No. 245, excluding Bill No.’s 181 to 184, 192, 196, 198, 217, 240, 242, and 243, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 180 to Revised Bill No. 245, excluding Bill No.’s 181 to 184, 196, 198,  217, 240, 242, and 243, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 5:36 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, 58 minutes)

[23:28] Thank you. Please be seated. That brings to order the ninth meeting of Municipal Council. I want to acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabak Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwock, and Adawan drawn peoples. We honor respect the history, language, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area. The two-row Wampumbell Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Silver Covenant Chain, Beaver Hunting Grounds of the Haudenosaunee Nanfand Treaty of 1701, and the Key Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, the current track treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabak, and the Dish With One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabak and Haudenosaunee. The three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chippewaas of the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and the Muncie Delaware Nation who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs. The city of London is also committed to making every effort to providing alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact council agenda at London.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425.

[26:46] With that, it brings me great delight to introduce our national anthem singer today. Born in Malaysia, Nicole Tan initially moved to Canada to pursue her musical endeavors in classical piano, cello, and vocals. She’s currently performing with her award-winning jazz fusion combo with a repertoire of over ten languages while providing memory care and music therapy to seniors all around. She’s nominated for a Forest City London Music Award under the jazz vocal category. Forest City London Music Awards will be hosting festivities all month around the city with her award show scheduled for June 16th at the London Music Hall. Please rise and join me in welcoming Nicole who will now perform the national anthem for us. Okay, thank you for that. We’re on to disclosures of the community interest. I look to members of council for any disclosures.

[29:32] Councillor McAllister. I have a conflict on it’s 8.1 for PEC on item 7. Clerk just requires you to indicate the general nature of your conflict like family member involved or something. It would be a perceived conflict as I’m on leave from Canada life. Other disclosures, go ahead. Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, and I’d like to declare a conflict of interest on item 13 of PEC for the surplus school sites expression of interest as I have a partner who works at the Thames Valley School Board. Okay, other disclosures. We’re on to recognitions. I’m gonna start with Councillor ramen for the first one. Thank you, Your Worship. Friday, June 6th 2025 marks four years since the devastating act of terrorism that took the lives of four members of our London family in their memory and in the spirit of healing solidarity and disrupting Islamophobia organizations across our community are putting together several public events to honor the legacy of our London family and support the ongoing journey towards healing. The Canadian flag will be flown at half massed as the our London family flag will be raised at City Hall on Friday, June 6th in honor of our London family. Additionally, city buildings will be illuminated and purple and green in their memory. Tonight, there is a walk at Canterbury Park from 6 p.m. to 7 30 and then on Friday June 6th from 8 30 p.m. to 9 p.m. London’s Muslim community will host prayers at 1435 Hyde Park Road, the northeast corner of Hyde Park and South Carriage Road on the grasses and parking lot area. The community is invited to join London’s Muslim community to participate and observe the Magra prayer in honor of our London family. This is a song time for our community. It’s the fourth year that we are commemorating this devastating tragedy that happened and I look forward to joining members of council and the community as we recognize our London family. Thank you, Councillor Palose. Thank you, Worship. I want to take a moment to acknowledge and thank those who were involved in the quick response as there was apartment fire at 1585 earnest where residents need to be evacuated including those who have been trapped on their balconies who had mobility issues. So just thank you to staff for their quick response as we did set up an emergency reception center that residents went to including extended overnight short-term stays for those who needed who had been displaced from their homes. The first responders who did extractions of residents from the hallways and their balconies as well as some had actually repelled to balconies below to escape and save their lives to the police to London Transit Commission as they helped to transport the residents who needed it into the neighborhood and the residents who still continue to support each other. So just thank you as the community overcomes what could have been a tragic event but no loss of life was held. Thank you, Councillor Palose. I have the next two recognitions myself so I’ll just rise and give those. The first is a more of a happy one. I wanted to recognize that as you know earlier this week the London Knights won the Memorial Cup Championship last night a good number of Londoners including myself gathered at Canada Lifeplace to celebrate the team who in a very short time frame because they’ve all got to go back home to various places where they live across the province had a wonderful celebration of their accomplishments as young individuals who have risen to the top of their sport. It also was recognized the contributions that both Mark and Dale Hunter have made to the sport in Canada. They have been doing this for 25 years and over that period of time they have won six OHL championships and three now Memorial Cups which is an accomplishment that I don’t think any other team coach or coaches have done in this league in its history. So it is an amazing accomplishment for our city. I can tell you when I was traveling for FCM lately last week of which I was watching the game slightly distracted from the work I was supposed to be doing on Friday night to make sure they made it to the final. I can tell you that when people say oh you’re from London they say oh the Knights they’re in the they’re in the Memorial Cup final. Some say it with a lot of jealousy. Others say it with a little bit of anger or annoyance and others just know that we have a great team and a great franchise in this city and know that we are often the team to beat. So congratulations to the players congratulations to the coaches and all of the back-end staff who make a team successful but also to the families who give support for those individuals to do what they do. There’s a lot of travel in playoff hockey particularly on the backs of the OHL championship and then into the Memorial Cup. A lot of time away from family I know that the team has great support from their family members who allow them to do what they do. So congratulations again I asked if we could have the Memorial Cup here. They kind of didn’t want to let me have my hands on it for a council meeting but it’ll be in our city for a little while so we have a chance to see it. It’s quite impressive to have here once again. It seems like we wait every 10 years to get one of these. I think the last two times were 2015 and 2025, 2025, 2015 and 2005. So hopefully we won’t have to wait 10 years for the next one. And my second recognition is in recognition of D-Day. Later this week allied countries across the world will be recognizing the 81st anniversary of the invasion of Normandy. I want to recognize that we’re joined in council chambers tonight by two students from France. If you both want to stand who I met with in my office before council. We’re part of an organization called West Lake Brothers Association. Now this is an organization of individuals in France five to 25 years old who are committed to ensuring that the memory of those who are lost in the battles that liberated their country are not forgotten and do not fade over time. They travel around many places including here and I know you’ve both been to London a couple of times and while they’re here and they travel to different cities they read out the 47,000 names of Canadian soldiers who were lost in those significant conflicts not just the ones on D-Day but all Canadian soldiers and so they spend hours in our communities reading out the names of those lost soldiers in respect and recognition of what they did to liberate their country. I want to say something I learned in discussing with you why the organizations called West Lake Brothers Association is there were three Canadian brothers who served and were all killed. One in the invasion of Normandy two in the days that followed. Their mother received the telegram from all three other sons being lost on the same day. Very tragic event and for your organization to take on the namesake of those that Canadian family who lost all of their sons in the defense of the country I think is a testament to how committed you are to ensuring that that sacrifice and those sacrifices as well as all that is made are never forgotten. So with that I think it’s appropriate for us to also rise since you’ve traveled all this way and just pay a moment of respect and recognition of all those were lost in conflict both past and present. Thank you you can be seated. I’ll just finish by saying thank you for taking the time to come here and for what you’ve done. Please share our sincere thanks with members of your organization. I know in the past you’ve had large delegations it’s just the two of you this time. All of you who’ve taken the time to do this it’s a testament to how much you care about the sacrifices members of this country made and we greatly appreciate it. Please share our thanks with you. Thank you. I know you’re welcome to stay for a council meeting.

[39:06] You probably got other things you want to do. I know you’re going to board Stanley I think. Okay so they’re they’re having as fun an afternoon as us. All right thanks so much again. We’re on to item three which is a review of confidential matters to be considered in public. We have none that takes us to the one item we have for council in closed session. I’ll look for a motion to move into closed session. Councillor Stevenson seconded by Councillor Cady and discussion on closed session. Okay we’ll open that for voting. As I indicated at the SPPC I did went to request a closed session should I wait till the SPPC. Thank you. Sorry I’m in both sides. No to thank you closing the vote.

[40:12] Motion carries 14 to 0. Okay we’re in committee room five so we’ll we’ll go there and then we’ll return when we’re done. It’s just one item. Thank you. Please be seated. Okay that concludes council in closed session we’re on to confirmation and signing of the minutes of previous meetings. We have the minutes from the May 13th meeting. I need to move in a seconder for that.

[53:59] Councillor Ferreira seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Any discussion on the minutes? Seeing none we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Hopkins felt yes. Noted thank you and Councillor Lewis. Second call for Councillor Lewis. They’re just checking if you scribe is working. Clerk I did submit it there. I vote yes.

[54:55] Thank you. Noted closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to 0. Okay we’re on to communications and petitions. Now we’ll deal with 6.1 and 6.2 separately because those are us sitting as the expropriation approval authority and then the expropriating authority related to expropriation projects which for you for those just a reminder we’ve done this a few times. We sit as the approval authority after we make a recommendation as the approval authority goes to the expropriating authority which is still us. Then we approve as the expropriating authority the expropriation. So it’s a few steps then I have to read them out but we’ll go through it. We’ll through it as we normally do. So the first step is to convene council as the proving authority. I need a mover and a seconder and then I’ll read out the motion. Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Pribble. Okay it’s that council convene is the approving authority pursuant to the provisions of the expropriation act 1990 CE 26 as amended for the purpose of considering communication number one from the deputy city manager environment and infrastructure with respect to the expropriation of lands that may be required for the project known as the Wellington Gateway Project Civic Works Phase 2. Any discussion on sitting as the approval authority? Seeing none we’ll open that vote. I vote yes but it’s not letting me vote. Councillor Pluzza votes yes. Mine’s also glitching. It’s okay Councillor Fuzza yes as well. Opposed in the vote motion carries 13 to 1. Okay I figured out how to fix that if you get hung up you just have to hit the current item and then at the top of that current item we’ll say voting in progress you reopen the voting progress it should let you submit. I tried it it seemed to have worked even though it wasn’t taking my vote the first time so hopefully that’ll solve any issues but if not we’ll pause if we have to to fix any technical issues.

[57:43] Okay we’re on the step two. I’ll read out the motion and then I’ll look for a mover and a seconder. Then on the recommendation of the deputy city manager environment and infrastructure with the concurrence of the director construction infrastructure services and on the advice of the director of Realty Services the following actions be taken with respect the expropriation of lands that may be required for the project known as the Wellington Gateway Project A. Council the Council of the Corporation of the City of London as approval authority pursuant to the expropriations Act 1990 CE-6 as amended hereby approves the proposed expropriation of lands described as Schedule A as appended to the staff report June 3 2025 in the City of London County Middlesex it being noted that the reasons for making the decision are as follows one subject lands are required by the Corporation of the City of London for the Wellington Gateway Project 2. The design of the project will address the current and future transportation demands along the corridor and 3. The design is in accordance with the municipal class environmental study recommendations for the Wellington Gateway Project as approved by municipal council at the meeting held on May 21 2019 and B.

[58:49] Subject to the approval of A a certificate be approved and issued to the City Clerk on behalf the approval authority in the prescribed form moving a seconder for that moved by Councillor Cuddy seconded by Councillor Hillier any discussion on this matter see none then we’ll open it for voting closing the vote motion carries 13-1 step three is fairly easy we’re going to adjourn as the approving authority I look for a motion to adjourn Councillor Plaza seconded by Councillor Frank we’ll open that for voting as soon as it’s Councillor Lewis noted closing the vote motion carries 14-0 okay we’re now saying as municipal council which is the expropriating authority we have advice from the approval authority on an expropriation the motion is basically exactly the same as was just recommended to us as the approval authority so I’m not we’re gonna read it out again but I need to move her in a seconder for that authorization by Councillor Hopkins any discussion on this okay seeing none we can open that for vote closing the vote motion carries 13 okay thank you that concludes 6.1 to 6.2 we’re now we’re now going to refer the rest of the items in the communications and petitions to the relevant areas of the agenda this includes everything that is remaining including the added a look for someone who’s willing to put that motion Councillor ramen seconded by Councillor Trost have any discussion on referring those items seen and we’ll open that for voting closing the vote motion carries 13-1 have no motions to which notice is given which means we’ve moved on to reports 8.1 is the report of the Planning and Environment Committee I’ll just note for the chair Councillor McAllister declared on 7 Councillor Frank declared on 13 and I don’t know if people have given you notice on others but I’ll let you present your report thank you Mayor I’m pleased to announce we have eight items pulled so go easy on me I’m gonna be on my feet here for a while I’ll list the items Mayor that I have down 7 12 13 15 17 19 20 and 21 okay Councillor Hill here if you could pull 18 as well so I can keep my book consistent thank you yeah there’s that seems like more than enough so I’ll let you let you make a motion with what’s left thank you so I’ll put a 1 through 6 8 through 11 14 16 22 and 23 on the floor okay that’s on the floor by the chair is there any discussion on that list of items as outlined by the chair all right we’ll open that for voting closing the vote motion carries 14 to 0 thank you I’d like to put number 7 on the floor this is regarding a heritage alteration permit by Ken in life just give me one second chair all right we’re good on 7 now so chairs moving 7 any discussion on 7 okay we’ll open that for voting closing the vote motion carries 12 to 1 with one recusal go ahead chair thank you I’d now like to put on 12 which is regarding regarding the update on the green development guidelines okay that’s on the floor by the chair any discussion on that okay Councillor Stevenson go ahead thank you I’d like to vote on a separately from B&C on this one and you know we’re in budget talks and looking to save money and here we’ve got a hundred and twenty five thousand dollar consulting fee for something that’s non-essential not required and so consistent with my other votes on other consulting fees that have not been that aren’t necessary then I’m going to be saying no to this one there’s a desire from the public for us to look at things from a budget perspective every time they come before us every time we’re asked to approve funding particularly when it comes to consulting fees and they ask why is it that we would be paying a hundred and twenty five thousand dollars for something that isn’t mandatory and potentially is not even going to be effective by the time provincial legislation comes in so as I said in the past I’ve said no to these before and this is another hundred and twenty five thousand that on behalf of the London taxpayers I’m going to be voting no Mayor Lewis thank you worship so on item 12 I would actually like to move a referral on this I’ve provided the clerk some language that this item be referred back to civic administration with with respect to reviewing it for its scope and feasibility following the outcome of votes on bill 17 which is in the provincial legislature I will look to see if there’s a seconder for that or you will as chair and then I’ll speak to a little bit further yeah there’s a seconder go ahead okay thank you you worship so I can actually advise colleagues that bill 17 passed third reading today this afternoon just an hour or so ago maybe a little less so I think before we start proceeding with a consultant’s approach on this we do need to send it back to staff further review it it seems to me and you know only giving the bill a draft review last night when this was brought to our attention that this was in the provincial legislature I did read the provincial bill I do think it significantly limits our ability to implement green standards and I think we need to send this back to staff before we proceed with a consultant other speakers to the referral which is what we’re on now referral takes precedence so we’re just talking with the referral now Councilor Troso to be consistent through the chair with what I’m going to say when we get to the merits of this I’m going to vote against the referral I think when you look at the text of the bill it’s very clear that this means we can’t mandate something in our code but there is no there’s no reason why we can’t develop standards we do that all the time we develop standards best practices things we’d like to look things we’d like people to look at there’s nothing in this bill that is contrary or precludes us moving ahead with this and the other point I want to make is I think we’re under somewhat of an obligation to move ahead with this expedited as quickly expeditiously as we can given the climate emergency the last council and this council have said time and again we have a climate emergency we need to be looking at these types of policies we have an action plan we have a strategic plan this has been through council so many times and there’s nothing in here that is going to mandate as a matter of the building code any applicant from doing anything they don’t want to do but we’d be making a big mistake if we did not appreciate the value of standards even if those standards don’t have an enforceable remedy for their violation so I just I just I hear we’re going to go through a couple of different motions on this and I just want to make it very clear at the beginning I just thought the staff report on this was wonderful I’ll come back and say that again with more particularities but no we have to do this actually we’re under an obligation to do it thank you to the referral Councillor Frank thank you and I’ll be quick because Councillor Truss I said most of the things I was going to say I additionally will not be supporting referral at this moment I think we have already waited about a year and a half no no offense everything’s going as I can but we’ve already waited fairly significantly for this report and at this point I additionally agree with Councillor Truss out that while Bill 17 appears that provides direction municipalities cannot go further than the building code this is a framework and it’s not the intent of the framework is not to develop regulatory standards that exceed the building code it is intended to aim to improve the tracking of green measures that are being voluntary incorporated into development and helps feed into our climate emergency action plan dashboard it’s an item that’s outlined in our plan at this point I’m very comfortable moving forward with it and in regards to the funding it’s a hundred twenty five thousand dollars from a reserve fund so it’s not hitting the property tax levy additionally at this point of course I would love to hire staff to do it but a consultant for a one-time report makes the most financial sense so I won’t be supporting referral because I’m comfortable moving forward at this point others because the referral Councillor Layman with respect to my colleagues I disagree I think I’m fine with you know staff coming back to us a later date that’s why I’ll support referral but in light of this is a third reading which I wasn’t even aware of until now so deputy mayor indicated I think if staff are gonna come to us with report should be in context the revised building code is put forward by the provincial government at any new laws that they might they might produce so our staff are under tremendous pressure right now to do the work that comes to them on day by day so I think that I’d like to remove this portion of it until we know exactly what’s coming down the pipe Councillor Stevenson thank you I’ll support the referral although I’d prefer to just say no to it there is now a housing crisis and an affordability crisis and those are trumping the others in terms of a lot of people that I speak to who live in this city and want us to just focus on the basics to let go of creating standards and tracking for things that aren’t essential they want us to focus on the basics sir so that’s debate on the main motion because we’re talking about referring it you’re talking about not doing it at all so we’re talking about the referrals so if you’re for the referral we can refer it well I’m saying I completely then you can eat that’s not what you get to speak to you at the moment because this is a referral so speak to the referral okay well I struggle with referring it because I think people want us to say no because then it goes on to the list of things that we have to track and monitor and talk about again so I am on the fence in terms of referring it I would rather just say no when we talk about yeah I guess I’m gonna get off track but reserve funds and it matters I think people just want to see us cut some strings and move on to the things that matter the most which is the budget and housing and some other things the speakers to the referral you can always make a point of personal privilege counselor I will listen to what it is though well my point of personal privilege is I care very much about the environment in our emissions and our green standards so when it said it’s not important to people I just have to take that as somewhat of a slight especially since I’ve made my position on this is very clear I don’t know if people listen to anything I say but as a point of personal privilege I would take issue with what Councillor said okay so I would prefer us not to get into points of personal privilege based on counselors claims they may represent a broader group than they actually do each counselor represents a constituency they’re gonna speak in this council chamber sometimes they take a lot of liberty with how many people they feel they’re speaking for we recognize the community has divided opinions on pretty much everything before this so my preference is that counselors try to speak their opinion right you’re representative you can say here’s what I think as a representative of people we don’t have to try to be broad and say we represent all the people or some of the people and I don’t think counselors should take offense when someone says they represent people and this is their opinion because there’s lots of people with lots of opinions out there so you know we can spend a lot of time on points of personal privilege in this space or we can just try to keep our comments tight and and try not to take offense that to what other counselors are saying and just try to recognize that each of us have some valid valid views but so do the other people and there are lots of diverse views in the community and no one represents a view exclusively and no view is exclusively universal in this community because there’s great diverse opinions so I’m gonna say the point of personal privilege is dealt with but with that general caution that we can spend a lot of time on this or we could we could focus on the debate which is my preference so any other speakers okay so this is on the referral so both yes is a vote to refer it and for more analysis by staff I vote no and we will continue to deal with the motion on the floor as the main motion I’ll open up for voting closing the vote motion carries 8 to 6 okay so that items referred which means we can move on to the next item thank you Merrill move on to 13 like what 13 on the floor which is regarding surplus school sites expression of interest 70 Jacqueline Street which is the formal weebel adult education center and 1366 year on street surplus land from St. Anne Catholic school okay any discussion on this one okay seeing none the wolf in that for voting sorry go ahead Councillor McAllister thank you through the mayor I know I’m off in the distance here sir and you’ve put up a flag no I just want to again I spoke to this committee but in terms of the site at 70 Jacqueline Street this is a former weebel adult education a lot of interest in my community in terms of what we potentially would do with it I know if some have been identified in terms of municipal needs for affordable housing community facilities or parkland any of these honestly this is a site that a lot of said interest we’d like to see something done with it fully support the city you know moving forward with the expression of interest and I’d love to see what we can come back with so thank you great anyone else sorry for you know a little quick there you can understand with so many items fold that I would attempt to move it along okay all right well we can open the vote on this one then I was in the vote motion carries 13 to 0 with one recusal go ahead chair thank you mayor and I appreciate your eagerness my legs thank you I’d like to put number 15 on the floor 20 Clark Road okay 20 Clark roads on the floor any discussion on this go ahead Councilor McAlister thank you to the mayor I’ll start this conversation off first off I want to thank the community for all the input calls emails there’s a lot of engagement on this unfortunately I think the engagement though was largely between the community and myself I do feel the developer could have done a better job in this case of engaging with the community and listening to their concerns also want to thank the staff for their work on this appreciate that and also thank PEC members I know you had a very long meeting a lot of PPM so appreciate as a visiting counselor being able to come and pass along the views from my constituency also appreciate the amendment which was put forward I think that’s one of the common threads in terms of the feedback I received in terms of having access to Clark Road I will say though today I was conflicted at PEC but I will be speaking and voting against this I just feel unfortunately it’s not appropriate plan I think there’s a number of flaws which I don’t think have been addressed the site access through Clark is one of the big ones I’m thankful the amendment went through I’m not overly optimistic even based on staff’s response that that’s something that can be accommodated so I have issue with that the loss of the woodland and not having an appropriate site to compensate is also an issue for me I’ve gone and actually walked this site it’s a bit of thick brush these days as we can imagine through the spring and to lose that significant wood log which is even identified as being significant is a loss to the community and I do believe we need to protect that so I will be speaking against this I think all council needs to look at this obviously in fill is a priority for us but not every site is appropriate and this is one which I have heard loud and clear from the community that they are not in favor of thank you other speakers to this go ahead council yeah thank you you worship I did attend the PEC meeting on this one and really appreciated the community’s input as well I also want to thank staff in the recommendation it does speak to the ecological replacement compensation plan which I would like to see more and more often in these recommendations I have strongly supported doing something like this in developments in my ward I will not be supporting this recommendation however I do think if we remove wood lots it is a concern especially with an application that had a number of issues the word councillor spoke to them I’m not going to repeat them but as much as I am supportive of that compensation plan I won’t be supporting this application other speakers okay not seen on this is moved by the chair will open this for voting actually your worship I’ve had my hand up all right for some reason I can’t see that on the monitor all right if we your screens on I’m sorry I just doesn’t pop up so you just have to flag for me when see now I can see it go ahead thank you so I’m gonna say on this one but you know I appreciate the comments from the word councillor I know he’s he’s done some engagement with the community I will say that most of the community feedback I’ve received on this has been all focused on how people don’t want townhouses and you know with all due respect mixed use housing townhouses alongside single-family homes is and and should continue to be the reality as we infill subdivisions I also heard about you know not wanting for sale and and or Frederick extended or open you know I think that when residents move into a subdivision that’s not finished and you see a street that’s clearly just dead ended in a way that’s not leading to anywhere that that to think that that’s never going to be finished is you know respectfully not realistic this comes with the staff recommendation to move forward it comes with a condition of draft approval during the detail design on the natural heritage compensation so while the details are not identified yet through you I want to ask our staff until that compensation is identified appropriately nothing can happen here anyway is that not correct because we would not have a condition of approval good thank you through the chair yes that’s correct it’s a condition of draft approval that must be fulfilled thank you chair so so through you and and thanks to miss me for that response you know those are the details that we don’t decide at PEC or at council those detailed design features get designed through the approval process after we have granted the zoning I do not see a legitimate planning reason to turn this down and and what I do believe the result will be is ultimately that this goes to an OLT if we turn it down and then we’re turning down something that our staff has recommended so I really encourage colleagues to support the staff recommendation on this move this forward I do hope that an an access point even if it’s a restricted access and I was happy to see that supported at committee to Clark Road I do think that that makes some sense to investigate but I don’t think that we can hinge a refusal on a lack of access to Clark Road in the current plan noting that it’s it’s something to be investigated during the detailed design anyway so I encourage colleagues to support the staff’s recommendation on this okay any other speakers seeing none well open this for voting this is staff recommendation from committee was in the vote motion carried ten to four go ahead chair thank you I’d like to put number 17 regarding 1890 and 1900 Kilgorm way on more please okay that’s on the floor I’ll look for speakers go ahead Councillor Hopkins yeah thank you your worship I asked for this one to be pulled this is an application holding provision being removed in my ward on Kilgorm and way I know this came to a previous council I did not support it at that time I won’t be supporting it again I know there are a number of legislative changes that have happened since then I know our policies need to be updated but I also understand that council can allow the PPS to go beyond our policies and I don’t see anything has changed I do support agricultural uses I also support environmental lands as well and I would encourage you know council not to support this if anything if it is not supported I’d be happy to provide a referral back until we have a better understanding what our policies are thank you any other speakers seeing none this is open for voting closing the vote motion carries ten to four go ahead chair thank you your work I’d like to put number 18 on the floor regarding six 168 metal lily road south okay that’s on the floor by the chair and you discussion on this go ahead Councillor failure yes thank you I’ve asked for this to be pulled again so I can vote against it and I do understand my colleagues know that well it does check off all the boxes on the London plan we’ve made a few exceptions by raising the heights from 12 meters to 42 meters if this this is an isolated property and to use the London plan as an excuse that we can increase the density to a 1,007 units and only having five just over 500 parking spaces I don’t feel is appropriate right here if this was a hundred unit block I could see it working but 1,000 that means we have 500 spaces where do all the extra cars go when I want you look around this lot to the one side we have the sports park to the other side we have the highway we have the ESA and then we have a commercial plaza where do the cars go this is where the London plan fails us and I’m hoping my colleagues will see this in the future because I know this is going to go through and please consider us again that a half a parking space in isolated areas does not work maybe downtown thank you okay any other speakers to this okay seeing none we’ll open this voting closing the vote motion carries nine to five okay go ahead chair thank you your worship this is a like put number 19 in floor this is regarding 1206 Oxford Street East and 17 to 19 Whizzlow Street there is a small administrative change to the by-law that was requested by staff I think the clerk would have that and just as a heads up that will also be the case in 21 that will come a bit later okay so you’re putting the community recommendation on the floor then you’re moving the the administrative change which yeah so that’s okay I’ll need a seconder I guess on that one right it’s just it’s the revised recommendation okay okay so you move that I need a seconder Councillor Hopkins willing to second we’ll just make sure that it’s up so people can see that should be up now we’ll take any discussion on the revised recommendation that Councillor Layman’s moving okay then we’ll open that piece for voting closing the vote motion carries 14 to 0 okay now just the motion as amended because that was changed from the community recommendation now that is the recommendation so Councillor Layman will vote that that Councillor Hopkins still willing to second yeah okay so now as amended go ahead Councillor Stevenson thank you I just wanted to quickly say thank you to the residents who reached out with some of their needs and there was very quick response from the developer the planner my colleagues at planning committee I just wanted to say thank you it wasn’t it’s not mandated but it is in the motion and it’s appreciated by the residents and by me as the Councillor so thank you okay any other speakers seeing none so this is the as amended motion was in the vote motion carries 14 to 0 go ahead chair thank you moving on to item 20 this is regarding a demolition it requests for the project at Anne Street and George Street that items on the floor I look for any speakers to this one seeing none then we’ll open that for voting closing the vote motion thank you your worship item 21 and this is for the same reason as item 19 there is a small housekeeping amendment by staff this is regarding 2999 to 307 sorry near road so I would like to move the staff’s amendment so this one won’t be an amendment because what it is it’s it’s a change to the by-law so that language is reflected in the motion that Councillor Layman can put on the floor the by-law will be slightly different when we get the by-laws so just so everybody’s clear that this is the vote there isn’t a and as amended after this this is the full vote because it’s not in the recommendation changing it’s in the by-law that the wording changed okay everybody’s good with that all right any debate then our discussion all right we’ll open that for voting closing the vote motion carries 14 to 0 thank you worship that concludes the a 3/4 of the planning and environment committee and thank you to my colleagues yeah I think I think you set that up to sound like it was gonna be longer than it was so way to under promise over deliver however that the saying goes all right we’re on to the seventh report of the strategic priorities and policy committee I will have Councillor ramen present that because she checked the meeting thank you through you I’ll look to move I’ve so I will say I’m moving the seventh report of strategic priorities and policy committee I’ve asked but I’ve been asked to pull item 3 2.2 I’ve been asked to pull item 7 4.2 but those are all that I’ve notified of so far when anybody like anything else separate aside from 3 and 7 okay go ahead thank you I’ll put forward a motion for items 1 2 4 5 6 and 8 okay that’s on the floor by Vice Chair any debate or discussion go ahead Councillor Stevenson thank you I just wanted to make a comment regarding the London hydro appointment I wasn’t here for SPPC I don’t have any issue with the appointment that committee recommended what what does bother me a little is the fact that the languaging of our resolution says that London hydro can make a recommendation to us for shareholder but my experience last year was that it was not a recommendation it was a lot more than that and so I would like clarity going forward that we get clear on expectations there’s a huge list of resumes there that I didn’t even look at this year because we’re being recommended a candidate so what are we doing going through all that and posting all those publicly when we’re gonna take the recommendation so I would just like clarity on that because as I said Council Committee did choose a different candidate and the experience that we had was not that that was okay with London hydro I think that’s fine okay perfect thanks for the comments any other comments on this one or any of the other items for us Councillor Ramen thank you and with respect to the London hydro candidate for the board I just wanted to say that once again London hydro followed the process as outlined in the shareholder agreement they in my opinion as part of the selection committee as the Council representative to hydro frankly not sure what the issue would be they went through the process of reviewing the applications they shortlisted and did interviews as we have set out as part of the shareholder agreement so I also want to correct the record there was no selection of another candidate for as well the candidate selected was the candidate from London hydro okay any other discussion on all of the matters that are before us seeing none we’ll open up for voting those in the vote motion carries 14 to 0 chair thank you all look to put item 3 2.2 the strategic plan implementation update on the floor okay that’s on the floor I look for any discussion seeing none okay Councillors do you Stevenson this is for the strategic plan correct yeah so I just keep my comments brief because I put a written submission in but I do I did really just do want to us to seek out some improvements to some of the ways that we report on and evaluate what we’re doing because there was the core area action plan there’s the whole of community response and the strategic plan where I just feel like we we look at task lists and percentages completed and we’re not really critically looking at the outcomes that we’re creating the value that’s being created for Londoners and I think there’s ways to improve what we’re doing so that it can be clearer simpler easier to read and easier honestly to highlight the wins that we’re that we’re making and to be honest about what’s not working thanks Councillor Preble I would like to actually thank staff I did go through this in quite detail and I see partially maybe the point that Councillor Stevenson made because we have a strategic pyramid has that doesn’t have only the three four parts that are in front of us but it has the expected outcomes results and when I match it when I match it there’s there’s always room for improvement no doubt but I want to say that based on eight areas of focus based on over I think it was 549 actions 96.7 VR they have been either accomplished or they’re on track and as I said when I go back to the steps of pyramid I feel really comfortable confident and yeah are there certain things that we could be better and we can go further deeper absolutely but do I believe we are on the right track and when we when we when we truck these actions on its own I do want to thank you the senior leadership team and there are certain things that I do would like maybe to do certain things even more deeper which I will contact you directly but kudos to the team and to your teams thank you very much any other speakers to this I can close it still it’s not people have not all voted yet well I would like to take you out from you speak to briefly yes folks go ahead that’s closed thank you so I said briefly and I’ll be brief I do appreciate Councilor Stevenson’s communication on this I’m gonna vote to receive the report but I do think that some of the pieces in there that are highlighted in the communication are relevant in that it comes back to what I said in the development of the strategic plan at the beginning of this term council we we just cannot do everything and with over 500 items in the strategic plan you know the the comments about some things aren’t detailed enough or in the communication we receive that items have been not updated or no action has been taken that’s because we didn’t fund them through a bunch of business cases and when I look at our strat plan and and look at the fact that it is larger than Toronto’s larger than Vancouver’s we’ve put far too many items in the strategic plan without resources to even begin to move forward on them and so as I said I am going to vote to to receive this but I think there has to be a genuine review of our strategic plan moving forward in terms of how we streamline the process and and identify what are really priorities in the next strap plan the next council because ultimately if everything’s a priority nothing’s a priority I do wonder if if there’s any opportunity through you chair to ask the city manager if she might have any comments about how the strat plan process given where we are and I know she inherited this one but given where we are if she’s got any thoughts on how we might refine the development of a strat plan in the future well I can ask her it sounds like a good conversation to have rather than just a question at council but I’ll let her let our answer if she wants to and so through your worship certainly we are looking and I appreciate the recommendations put forward by a counselor and also the comments from the deputy mayor and there’s no doubt a reality of us wanting to look at a process that is both usable for you as council members to develop a strap pilot a strap plan for us to action but also to make it understandable for you for us and importantly for the citizens of this community so happy to look at that we’re already starting the discussions about what the next strap plan can look like and we’ll be looking for some feedback and advice for this process so please if you have a sum share it with us good good yeah that’s that’s much appreciated and I’ll certainly arrange an opportunity to speak with the city manager about that further because I do think it highlights that that the strap plan we developed is not actually a doable plan it might be aspirational but it’s not practical and so I look forward to those conversations I will however book to receive the update that we have today okay Council Ramen thank you and I appreciate the conversation I think it’s actually helpful as we start to contemplate what we’d like in a strap plan in the future I will say that I think it would be helpful to have a strap plan working group of some sort I don’t know if that would go through governance working committee is a separate working group but just to look at what kind of options and opportunities are available for us to potentially look at doing this work differently so I will look to put something to governance working okay any other speakers to this item okay now I’m gonna open the vote and it’s as as it was before so go ahead closing the vote motion carries 13 to 1 go ahead Councillor thank you my next item is item 7 4.2 the 2025 London Middlesex community housing asset management plan I was asked to pull this item okay that item is on the floor I’ll look to speakers on this that’s a choice out go ahead thank you very much and through the chair I’m not going to repeat my lengthy presentation from the SPPC I am going to say that when I received this report I was not happy with it for a number of reasons I’m still not but having said that and I am going to vote against this but I do want to acknowledge that I was able to have a good conversation with folks at London Middlesex housing corporation and I think some of the things that I’m I’m not gonna offer any amendments today but I will be maybe raising some issues at the shareholders meeting I just want to say I’m very concerned about the conditions in the units I think everybody shares those concerns and we need to do what we need to do to get the funding in place my particular thing that I wanted the referral for was to discuss financing and I believe that that is under discussion and I understand that there is some question about whether this could come to the next annual budget update or whether it needs to wait for the next multi-year plan I’m of the view that it needs to come up as soon as possible I don’t want to kick the can down the road to the next council but I do feel as if some of my some of my some of my concerns have been addressed the the other point I want to make is I would like to make a motion to go in in in camera because I flagged this at the meeting and I said I would do this I’m very concerned about the potential liability that the city has given the poor conditions my sense is that certainly is the sole shareholder and is the owner of the property we would be liable if if an action was filed against London Middlesex housing corporation I don’t really think we need to go into closed session if I’m wrong about that I would just like to be corrected but if you’re not comfortable just answering that question I wouldn’t mind going into closed session I think it’s a really important point because the taxpayers of the city of London are on the hook for what could be massive massive liability and it’s not just for rent over charges it’s not just for premises liability cases it’s also for personal injuries and deaths that may occur on the property and I think given the conditions of the property and given some of the press accounts that we’ve had and given some of the things that we understand about what’s happened in these units it’s not remote for me to say that I have very serious liability issues so if we’re if we need to clarify that the city of London as the sole shareholder is jointly and severally liable here we can have a discussion about that I don’t think it’s necessary but if the city solicitor is not comfortable answering that question just very very directly without regard to a particular case I would move that we go into closed session I’m gonna ask if this list understands what the question is that’s being asked because I know there was more of a statement there but do you need any clarification on what he’s asking or did you get that thank you through you chair I think I understand the question but to the extent that I would give an answer with respect to liability that wouldn’t be done in public that would be done in closed session okay so and I would say that probably doesn’t mean it one way or the other but she’s probably not gonna give an answer on liability whether it’s good or bad either way in public session yes through the chair I’d like to move then that we go into closed session to have that question answered and if we can’t do that today let’s do it at the net no no we certainly can I just just got to work it out so I just because we’re at council I’m not gonna I don’t like winging things here I’d like to read actual texts of motions and then I’ll ask for a seconder so the reason for going in camera that Councillor chose I was asking for that council rise and go into council closed session for the purpose of considering the following a matter that is subject to solicitor client privilege including communications necessary for that purpose respect to the London and then also community housing asset management plan that fit your reason okay is there a seconder for that Councillor Ferrera okay so this is we’re led to debate going in camera so any discussion on this okay seeing none then this is a motion to move into closed session moved by Councillor Tross I seconded by Councillor Ferrer well not voting closing the vote motion carries 10 to 4 okay we’re gonna go to community room 5 again so same as we did earlier today we’ll we got one matter to go in for we’ll be back when we’re done okay please see it okay so we’re back we are in the middle of the SPPC committee item 7 Councillor ramen is presenting the committee report Councillor Tross I was to go into closed session he’s used three minutes of his time so go ahead Councillor Tross I thank you and through the through the chair in the remainder of my time I just want to thank staff for the assistance that they’ve given on this file I do think we are going to be making progress on this file I’ll have more to say about it at the shareholders meeting I’m not going to be making any amendments now I particularly want to thank the London Middlesex community housing for providing this beautiful colored chart which which is very which is very helpful and I look forward to talking about ways in which we can raise more money the bottom line here is I want to raise more money to put into housing conditions and there are a couple of different ways we can do that and well I don’t think the asset management plan is a perfect tool and I still do have concerns about some gaps in it which is why I’ll be voting no I do appreciate the the particularly the communications that I’ve had with with the with the agency so I think with that I’ll let this go for today thank you and I’ll just add from the chair for context related site and for colleagues one of the items that the the big city mayor’s caucus discussed when we met with federal ministers particularly the new housing minister was the the new entity that the Prime Minister is looking to create build Canada homes which will be heavily capitalized by the federal government and the scope of what those investments will be used for whether it’ll be just building out right new homes will there be affordable components to it how will there be any investments in social housing stock across the country those are some details that remain to be worked out so on the idea of access to funds at the federal level I think that there are some questions and certainly some concerns raised about the need for those dollars to be accessible in some way for refurbishment and expansion of some social housing stock as well so I’ll just add that context all right any other speakers to this item go ahead Councillor Stevenson thank you I just wanted to quickly say that there’s no question we need a lot more money for these housing units but one of the things that we have been addressing is the tenancy profile and who we’ve been putting into the buildings and whether they are able to live you know our houseable from a certain degree in inter-social housing so I know we’ve made some changes hoping that’s going to make even more of a difference but in terms of adding more money that’s great and finding ways to make sure that that money’s not slipping away in terms of damages and ongoing repairs that could be mitigated in other ways I think we need to look at both at the same time any of the speakers seeing none then we’ll open this for voting if it’s not coming up try current item and then go to the top of that item and it’ll say it be a voting in progress and then you click on voting in progress it should open the vote if it never came up for you closing the vote motion carries 13 to 1 go ahead thank you that concludes the seventh report of SPPC great thank you onto the tenth report of infrastructure and corporates services committee that means still get stand so you can present the next report thank you and so I will move I’ve been asked so far to pull items five six thirteen fourteen and sixteen looking horseshoe to see if there’s anything else to pull anything anybody else would like separate right now five six thirteen fourteen sixteen are separate it’s like everybody’s had a chance to look thank you I will then put forward a motion for items one two three four and then seven eight nine ten eleven twelve and fifteen okay any discussion on those we’ll open that for voting closing the vote motion carries fourteen zero thank you I’ll start with item five two point four twenty twenty five reserve and reserve fund monitoring housekeeping report I’ll open that for discussion go ahead Councillor Stevenson thank you I just had a couple of quick questions on C and D I know I asked at committee about C and why we were establishing this new DC incentive program reserve fund but I just wanted clarity again I know it’s a correction from last year but we’ve also had the DC incentive programs for a long time so I guess my question just is again why now and does it impact the our surplus policy or is it impacted by our surplus policy thank you through the chairs so Mr. Murray is also online so I’ll refer that first question to him but certainly does not impact our reserve the surplus deficit policy this reserve fund would stand on its own based on the allocations that are put forward to satisfy that and I’ll allow Mr. Larry Murray to provide a little more detail in the context of the bylaw go ahead Mr. Murray thank you through you Mr. Mayor so yes that is correct this this was a bylaw amendment that was brought forward strictly to correct an oversight in the bylaw that was previously put forward the specifically the incentives that are addressed through this amendment are those that have historically been paid through this fund and are intended to be paid through this fund in alignment with the the incentive programs that are offered the the counselor is correct that there there are a variety of different incentive programs including the institutional development charges discount the industrial development charges grant program as well as the residential development charges incentive grant program those are the incentives that are funded through this reserve fund and it was an oversight when we brought forward this bylaw when the reserve fund was created a couple years ago which we are now tending to correct that’s what Stephen said thank you for the clarity on that and it seems as though we’re just separating out and creating additional reserve funds to make things easier to track I guess is really what we’re doing right so then my other question it may be the same answer is on D the community efficiency retrofit programs reserve fund I guess I was just surprised to see this again for the same reason we had the Ontario renovates program before I know we added some money to it in anticipation of maybe something provincially coming forward so I guess my question is why are we setting up a new reserve fund for this when it’s something we’ve been doing and we may or may not be doing more of in the future if I understood it correctly oh Mr. Murray go ahead yeah thank you Mr. Mayor I’ll take this one through you so this this new reserve fund is actually unrelated to the Ontario renovates program this is in direct response to a new program that was approved through the multi-year budget and specifically the home retrofit program that was approved through the climate emergency action plan business case so the the business case approved funding for this program that funding was originally a part in our climate change reserve fund we are now though creating a new reserve fund this reserve fund that you see in front of you today in order to separate that funding out and to the counselor’s point specifically make it easier for us to attract track and keep tabs on what is specifically being spent on this new program that council will be receiving more details on in the coming months all right other questions on this one okay seeing them we can open that for voting those in the vote motion carries 14 to 0 thank you my next item is 6 2.5 the 2024 annual report on development charge reserve funds and development charge monitoring okay that’s on the floor I look for any questions go ahead Councillor Stevenson thank you I just wanted to follow up on a question that I had been asking staff in the meantime and it’s around the in and outs on the reserve funds I’m just wondering in past in some of the older budgets and reports you can see the in and out you can see it on in other cities and I just am wondering maybe is direction needed in order for us to get that information going forward because these reports it’s very difficult to determine what was spent during the year because from what I can understand they’re cumulative in terms of the amount being spent so maybe if staff could just answer my concerns around not being able to see what the expenses are per year Mr. Murray thank you to you Mr. Mayor so I believe the the counselors referring to generally our reserve fund schedules that are included in our budget documents and our budget materials so the counselors correct previous to 2021 we presented basically four lines of detail for each of our reserve funds that being planned contributions other contributions draw downs and then ultimately what is that the balance of each fund we found that that level of detail got quite significant in terms of volume that occupied approximately 14 pages of our 2020 multi-year budget so starting with the 2021 budget we moved to simply presenting the projected balances for each of our 90 plus reserve and reserve funds I would say that there is still the ability to of course derive the the annual activity on that reserve fund just by looking at the year-to-year change in the balance of that reserve fund so if the balance is growing of course contributions exceed draws and vice versa if the if the balance is decreasing then the draws have exceeded the contributions ultimately if council were to direct us to we could revert to the previous presentation in future budget documents but we have found at least in the last few years that most of the questions that we get pertaining to reserves and reserve funds are focused on what is the projected balance of that reserve fund and you know how much money do we have to spend in that reserve or reserve fund not so much related to the details underlying that that’s not to say that that doesn’t come up but we have found it’s not so much the focus but having said that if directed by council we could revert to the previous presentation for future budgets thank you that’s really helpful and I know that staff put a lot of work into all of these reserve funds I also understand and I was told that previous councils didn’t ask the kind of questions that I know I ask sometimes but I do really feel that going forward in the next few months I’m going to be looking to seek councils approval to start getting more financial information available the netting out of the increase decrease in the reserve fund just doesn’t have the level of transparency that I think is needed and so but I’m not going to do anything today but I am going to bring things forward so that there’s more information shared even if many people don’t look at it there’s a lot of people who could and would and I think it’s really important to do that and I hate to put more work on staff but I really do think that we’ve paired things down too much where we’re given very high level numbers and I think we just especially given the financial pressures that are coming I think more detail is needed. I’m just curious through the chair maybe you can answer this or maybe staff can answer this has any progress been made on the provinces promise to make make good on the development charges that we’ve lost as a result of legislation I remember it goes back to one of the first meetings we actually had as a new council and those those measures which were which were strongly criticized were met with will make good on what you lose is has any progress been made on that so maybe I’ll start and then miss Barbara miss Barbara to jump in so that the components about making the municipality whole contained a whole series of related costs that were on the municipality a number of which the province did roll back through the changes that they had with the phasing and of DC’s and others which were some of the more significant costs related to related to fees there was also a number of items that weren’t eligible to be charged back into I think the DC fund some of those items were reversed there was a number of fees levied upon municipalities some of those were reversed so a number of the items were corrected through the engagement through the Ontario big city mayors and the and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario I would say there are still components that remain because there are a number of statutory exemptions within the DC fund that mayors continuing to engage and an amo continues to engage the province on the province provides exemptions that the municipalities have to backfill into the DC fund we’ve not been made whole for those components yet although those are ongoing discussions I know I know I spoke with the premier’s office on this last week because the bill that was brought forward didn’t contain any changes there and I asked to see when progress could be made on that so I would say of the original suite of costs levied on the municipality a number of them have been pulled up but there still continues to be some items of significant pressure I don’t know if Ms. Barbone wants to add anything to that thank you through through your worship certainly with the most recent bill that’s been put out to that did make a number of additional changes that are pending and the legislature related to development charges act staff through the registry have submitted another letter that is requesting for some sort of change that would negate the municipality from having to backfill those statutory exemptions so certainly we continue to advocate for a change to absolve the municipalities of having to fill that with taxpayer dollars and we will continue that and hope that at some point there will be a change to provide some support in that regard my final my final question is I’m glad you’re doing that would it be possible for the counselors or the public to see the letter that you submitted to the registry I suppose there’s a way of fishing that out through through through researching the registry comment section but could you could you send that to us so we could just see that because I think it’s really great that you did that Ms. Barbone certainly through the chair we can absolutely provide that letter to counselors what I would note is in a previous report there was when when the development charges changes occurred that we had identified through a committee report what the section of the act is that we feel challenges municipality not to backfill those funds we have drawn specific attention to asking for that part of the act to be deleted and or changed so the letter is very very direct and draws reference to that change that we are looking for which mirrors one of the committee reports but I’m happy to share that with the council thank you okay other questions on the sign up okay see none then we’ll open this for voting closing the vote motion carries 14 to 0. Thank you the next item is 13 4.1 the 2025 council policy review okay that’s on the floor for discussion I looked for Chinese speakers seeing none yes go ahead Councillor Stevenson so this is 13 the council policy review yes that’s correct I just wanted to ask through you to staff around the free of fear policy given that the amendment that’s going through right now broadens that policy to apply to all Londoners it was raised to me you know is it time to maybe be done with that policy then if it’s not specifically addressing any particular group but it just addresses all also I wondered if I could get staff feedback what are the city manager to start I thank you through you to the question and so the purpose of this policy which is a council directed and council approved policies to enable residents regardless of their immigration status and that’s how we’re changing it to make it more inclusive so that anyone who comes into an organizational location whether it be a library or a community center that they would have access to service without having to provide their information at immigration immigration and the intentions need that is to ensure that we meet our welcoming community reality which is something that is part of your straw plan in terms of we are changing it to the deletion specifically is from with uncertain or no immigration status to regardless of immigration status we’re simply making it a little bit more inclusive so that everybody is included in that thus making it fair for all Londoners Councillor Stevenson thank you and the other question that I had sent was around an approximate budget is there a budget associated with the fulfillment of this policy go ahead thank you through you this policy is a policy that we train all our staff on that training is involved in included in our orientation to all staff there is no cost or budget associated with that except the training retirement time but that’s included in our orientation package thank you so just one follow-up on that that policy is so we’re not tracking the cost of that policy of the implementation of that policy across the city so the city manager thank you there are no costs of that policy okay thank you the only other policy that I am going to bring forward at another time I think is the access and privacy policy as I mentioned a couple of times I’m having some interesting issues regarding the amphipa or the freedom of information process and in doing this review of the policies and I was reading it I realized there’s an opportunity here for some clarity and some review so I was gonna vote against both of those but I think I’ll just leave it for now and I can bring forward that to another committee okay any other speakers to this get seeing none we can open this for voting closing the vote motion carries 14 0 right Council Roman next we have item 14 4.2 bad debt aspire food group this letter from Councillor Stevenson okay so this item is on the floor any discussion go ahead Councillor Stevenson thank you I just wanted to pull this and give Council an opportunity to vote on it it was something that I had brought forward I had issued a letter and had it on the regular agenda for committee given the amount and the publicity that we had surrounding that I thought it was a great opportunity for us to take a look at accounts receivable and our policies it is something that a lot of municipalities do every year most of us when we do our boards and commissions may do it more often maybe monthly we look at accounts receivable because there’s more risk involved and I understand that there is you know somewhat minimal risk involved with the cities but we’re also talking about huge amounts of money and there is an interest in the public to know what we’re doing to you know be good stewards of their money this is an opportunity to show and tell them what it is that we’re doing in terms of the collections whether it’s provincial fines whether it’s cancer I don’t mean interrupt you but right now it’s a recommendation for the community to note that you received a communication are you asking us to vote against this or amend it like speaking to it so can you just clarify what your what action you’re talking about with yep so yes I am asking you to vote against it because it’s something that I brought forward at committee and a counselor brought forward a motion to receive and take no action prior to me being able to to talk about this so is it just to receive yeah it doesn’t say take no action it says it’s an it being noted that they received a communication from you with respect to the matter okay thank you so again it’s one of those things totally allowed not super collegial when a colleague does the work to bring forward the motion and not have it be discussed but so what I’m asked there’s a motion here yet there’s no point of clarification but you’re the chair are you is this related to the motion to get through yes okay go ahead sorry thank you this item was discussed and dealt with at committee thanks for the info go back to Councillor Stevenson for your comments it’s accounts receivable you know it’s part of the oversight and governance in due diligence is to look at and talk about the policies that we have in place and the actions that are taken and the patterns over time it’s something I do anyway in the boards and commissions that I sit on it’s a reasonable a reasonable thing to review and discuss in the public and I would appreciate if council would vote no to this and allow me to move my motion forward that would just have us take a look and talk about and receive from staff a report on the accounts receivable for this billion dollar corporation so I’m just going to clarify just a little bit because not every colleague may have been at the committee so Councillor Stevenson you mentioned that your letter wasn’t discussed the committee report shows that there was actually a motion moved direct civic administration to prepare a report summarizing the amounts owned by Aspire Food Group process to collect it was debated it failed one to four but the committee actually did have some votes and take some action and then ultimately did receive your communications so I just want to clarify your which you’re suggesting your remarks is you want to defeat the take no action you want to put that motion back on the floor think no not that okay well you want to put our motion on the floor okay so I had a motion circulated prior to that committee okay well the committee had a they didn’t deal with that motion but they saw your letter they chose not to take action on it they tried to they addressed a matter related to it and that’s how the committee work works so you’re asking to defeat this you’d like to put something on if that were the case so I just I just want to clarify because I had a couple of people texting me and say I thought we had discussed some of this at committee so I just wanted to make sure it was yeah that’s council committee work and this is council work right I can ask for it to be defeated of course yeah that’s what you’re doing okay any other speakers to this right seeing none then this is the it being noted about the communication with Councillor Stevenson from the committee we just need to refresh the system to be able to bring that vote up so just be a second it’s not up yet okay the vote should be up but you may have to do that current item and then click on voting in progress to get it to come up mine hasn’t come up cutty votes yes frozen motion carries 12 to 2 that’s a ramen thank you next is item 16 5.2 concern regarding an infrastructure renewal project Councillor Stevenson’s letter okay that’s on the floor I look for speakers Councillor Stevenson thank you I appreciated committee’s willingness to look and discuss this at committee and now again at council I had a couple of questions through you to staff regarding the need to have a sidewalk on both sides of Eleanor so if Councillors don’t know this stretch of Eleanor is just one block there’s no houses on either side it’s just a plaza and some commercial properties putting the sidewalk on both sides of the street is going to have really negative impacts in terms of Londoners who are seeking out mobility devices so just through you to staff if what is the requirement to have sidewalks on both sides of the street and when we say AODA is that provincially mandated or is this municipal London plan go ahead thank you your worship the issues not particularly particularly with the sidewalk but with the fact that the current parking is on a municipal boulevard and actually extends into the traveled way it is there without permission and it cannot be rebuilt as it is currently configured on the public right of way as the tail end of the vehicles and 80% of each parked car is within the municipal right of way without permission the sidewalk does extend the need of that space however even without the sidewalk on this side it cannot be rebuilt as it is currently configured for private use go ahead Councillor okay thank you a follow-up on that is and might seem kind of silly but is there an ability to just leave it alone like I understand you can’t rebuild it but is there an ability to leave it alone go ahead thank you thank you your worship no there is not it is a non-conforming use of the public right of way without permission or consent and we are aware of it the whole street needs to be reconstructed it cannot be reconstructed as is the alternative it would be to provide a municipal boulevard with no parking no parking lay by but we cannot rebuild a non-conforming non-permitted use that has unfortunately come to our attention as part of this project right Councillor okay thank you I appreciated the the reach out and the opportunity to discuss it unfortunately it was late in the process and we’ve got a contract already underway I think of the comment that I want to make and no disrespect to staff but again how we can do things better is when we do engagement to highlight the issues that what what if we can anticipate that there’s going to be issues highlight them if not to the local residents to the ward Councillor so that we could be a bit more proactive on this I went back and looked at the notices thinking wow did I miss something you know there was such a big change to the parking and I wasn’t able to see it when I looked at the notice and with the designs it didn’t jump out at me either so to have such a drastic change in parking I just think we could be more proactive in terms of addressing the issues even if there’s no easy solution to offer just to be able to have so I’ll maybe give staff an opportunity to respond if they want to to just say is there a way for us to be more front-footed around what what large changes that are likely to be an issue go ahead thank you Your Worship we are always looking for ways to refine and improve our communications on projects the original renderings that show the change to parking were available in May of last year on get involved website notices were sent out at four different occasions but we will continue review and improve our processes where appropriate I think you I appreciate that and I feel a little I went back and looked at those design things and maybe that’s how some people feel when they look at financial statements I was not able to really understand those very well and so maybe there is a way to put things in layman’s speak and I’d love to follow up with staff on that as to how we can maybe do that differently and maybe as a counselor I get to reach out and have conversations even if things look like they’re simple and I don’t hear from residents that there’s a concern maybe do it anyway just to be myself more in front of some of these issues any other speakers this matter just have to just refresh your screen to make sure you can see the the vote there that the wrong item was put up for this so if you’re not refreshed you might be on the wrong item so I don’t see any of the speakers so we’ll open this for voting those in the vote motion carries 14 to 0 thank you that concludes my report sorry just I voted incorrectly on that do you mind doing the read just so that I can be okay so that you’re everybody voted on the winning side of that so anybody on the winning side can ask for reconsideration if you want to ask for reconsideration we can do that I do just I realize it’s not going to do anything and I just want to be on the record appropriately oh Councillor Trost has willing to second so this is a motion to reconsider the matter that we just voted on requires 50 plus 1 because it’s at the same meeting I think we just vote right away on this I don’t think anybody needs to discuss it it’s clear so we’ll get that up in a second we’ll open it for voting this is the vote on reconsidering the vote on the last matter and then we will vote on it again that’s two-thirds sorry not 50 plus one that should be open closing the vote motion carries 13 to 1 okay so the vote is now reconsidered the same vote is before us get that up in a second that’s our ramen is the community mover and we’ll open that as soon as it’s ready Eddie votes yes Councillor Layman Hopkins Frank votes yes Hopkins votes yes Frank votes yes noted thank you closing the vote motion carries 13 to 1 so that’s now the committee report is done thank you Councillor ramen the next committee report is community protective services committee let council fair present you mayor please present the ninth report of the community and protective services committee I have three poll requests from Councillor Stevenson that is item 6 4.1 the whole community system response overview item 7 the memo for affordable in a support of housing agreement templates and item 8 that’s the RFP 224 - 227 the approval of the template contribution agreement for highly supportive housing projects at 248 256 Hill Street and 644 646 here on Street and I have looking to I guess the chair and the clerk just for some guidance on this one we have a with item 9 has been withdrawn am I putting that on the floor here yeah it just doesn’t it just doesn’t get voted on it’s withdrawn okay so I can put I can move items 1 through 5 okay would anybody like anything separated from the one through five group any debate on items one through five okay seeing none they will open that for voting that’s was ramen and for vote yes closing the vote motion carries 14 to 0 alone one second okay colleagues it’s it’s been a little while also there’s clearly a problem with these guys that were some people having to vote manually so I’m going to ask if we can take just 15 minute recess and then I’m going to ask before you do that I want everybody before you leave just log out log back into e-scribe and then you know we’ll take 15 minutes okay so I moved by Councillor Ferris seconded by Councillor Hopkins all those in favor by but just by hand any opposed I care is 15 minutes but log of e-scribe and log back in now before you go anywhere okay take a seat we’re gonna get started again okay please be seated thank you we’re in the middle of Councillor Ferris report and I believe he’s about to present item 6 if I yeah go ahead Councillor Ferris thank you Mayor that’s correct I am next item is item 6 the whole community system response overview I’ll put that on the floor all right so that item is on the floor I’ll look for any speakers to this one Councillor Stevenson go ahead thank you this was a motion that I brought to committee asking for more information on the whole the community asking for a staff report so this is a receive and take no action of my communication so my request is that Council vote no and actually be able to address the motion that I brought forward I’m not gonna belabor it because everybody knows how I feel on it but it it arose out of receiving the quarterly report where it said that the strategy and accountability table had endorsed three locations such that it had released more than five million dollars from the London Community Foundation and it led me to be like who is this group who is on the group what were the discussions and how is council out of that process now so I’m asking for council to say no and then discuss my motion but I’ll leave it in your hands any other speakers to this okay we’ll open that for voting Councillor Lewis cutting and Stevenson that he votes yes Stevenson votes no sir Lewis second call for deputy Mayor Lewis marking Lewis absent closing the vote motion carries 10 to 3 go ahead to Councillor Ferris queue next is 7 4.2 on the report memo for affordable and supportive housing agreement templates as it relates to bill number 181 okay that’s on the floor I look for speakers Councillor Stevenson thank you to move things along I did I do have an amendment that I’d like to put forward and thank you to the clerks for helping me with this it hasn’t been circulated so I can read it out that the motion be amended to include a new part that reads as follows the civic administration be directed to seek council approval for contribution agreements including low in agreements under the affordable housing community improvement plan for any highly supportive housing projects so that’s an amendment to the motion that’s that came through committee so I look for a seconder for that amendment Councillor Layman seconds okay so we’ll debate the amendment do you want to provide some rationale yeah thank you as I stated earlier when we referred this I do think that it’s really important with respect to transparency in community engagement that Council be part of the process of approving the locations for these highly supportive housing units I did want to just ask through you to staff to just clarify because we did do this amendment you know just in the last 24 hours or so that this the wording of this amendment does cover both the contribution agreement that we see here as well as the CIP where they have access to you or is it just this one because my intention was this this one here the forgivable loan so we didn’t have to approve twice but I just want clarity there mr. Felberg thank you and through you mr. Chair so this this agreement based on the motion that we received last council on the May 13th that gave us direction to bring back any of the RFP approvals that we had in that original April 28th caps report so those those contribution agreements are covered for anything highly supportive this particular motion is specific to this EIP which we have a delegated authority under and can bring forward and can enter into those agreements without council direction this motion would seek for us to go and make some amendments to that delegation to support this new direction from council no Councillor sorry point of order is supersede yet go ahead well if this if this amendment is intended to apply to this matter I would say it’s contrary and we would have to defeat the main motion first okay well that’s a point of order so give me a second to address that this I got a question for mr. Felberg on this can you action both the council’s motion and the items contained within the committee of recommendations simultaneously they’re without conflict with each other to you mr. Chair yeah I believe we can I don’t think it’s a nation my ruling is it’s not contrary to the existing motion it could be added in and it could be considered as part of this so continue on Councillor Stevenson thank you so I’ll just make my comments then the idea is we have large infrastructure projects that come through us for final approval we do the planning things come to council for final approval after staff does all their work behind the scenes and I’m just asking for the same thing with regard to these highly supportive housing units they are something that’s new they are something that the public has a big interest in and I think it’s just I really think it’s important to just have council’s final approval it’s what we did with the hubs it’s what we do with most big decisions where we’re not excluded from the final approval process so my request is that you support this amendment it doesn’t slow anything down in terms of what we have here before us it just says that going forward every word and every how highly supporting housing project will have the same I’ll call it courtesy that was afforded us as we referred this forward through committee any speakers other speakers I should say go ahead Councillor Troso well I’m going to speak against it because I don’t see the words going forward might be against it anyway but I just think that that illustrates the point I was making before I think it’s I think it’s confusing and I appreciate the response that the staff gave us in the mayor subsequent ruling but does this does this apply to this project or just going forward because she just said going forward so I’d like a clarification if I may ask for one through the chair Mr. Felberg thank you and through you Mr. Chair so the this motion would apply to the CIP program which is a program that we have where we can actually go out and incubate partners in the community we can work with them on bringing new highly supportive housing programs forward I think this motion is complementary to the previous one from the previous meeting but in the clerk’s hands and the chair’s hands on where we go from here yep go ahead then you can continue you can continue your discussion other speakers then go ahead Councillor Ferreira thank you chair I got one question if this motion let’s say this motion or the way this was directing civic administration was already in place what would have changed for the what how would we see the hill in the Huron developments come towards council would we have still discussed it at committee like just considering that we do have some other levels of government funding coming through as well what would change if we were to have this motion if it was already in existence go ahead Mr. Felberg through you Mr. Chair so the hill and the Huron Street properties came from an RFP so we went out for procurement in the summer last year went in through fall and then came through the strong mayor award so if there were new projects the hill in the Huron Street would not be part of that CIP unless they were new properties or new projects those will come in separately we’re not going we don’t need to procure anymore because we have that CIP it allows us to have a conversation with folks it allows us to work with them through the different parameters of their proposals their agreements and figure out the nuance to it based on what they’re financing what the program is they’re delivering so I think they’re very different things and they’re two different processes and I think we’re okay to move forward yes I’m just gonna add a clarification because Mr. Felberg said through the use of strong mayor powers that this is the motion that staff brought a recommendation to council to ask if we were direct staff to bring them to me to bring them directly to council at councils that passed 15 to zero so this is not some thing that I’m just doing our staff is doing independent of councils decision making this is something counseling unanimously asked staff to do bring to me to speed up the process so that we could put this before council for council decision making faster on that particular project I just want to be clear on that go ahead and you can continue with your comments okay that was it thanks all right any other speakers to the amendment on the floor go ahead Councillor cuddy thank you worship all actually yield to deputy mayor before I speak well you don’t get to yield you’re on the you’re on the floor thank you so being polite that’s not in the procedure by-law so but if you’re you may as well speak your mind now and then I’ll go to the deputy mayor next thank you thank you your worship and through you question for staff you know we just had one of the most successful affordable housing projects in the St. Vincent de Paul project on Fallon Road at Huron in my ward and I’m very proud of it as I think council is very proud of it as we voted 15 we voted unanimously to support it and my question to staff would be if if this motion were to pass that this amendment were to pass St. Vincent de Paul would have to come to council first to get approval even though that they raised millions of dollars in contributions before this so they they actually had a war chest before they began so they’d have to come to to council to to get approval that’s my question sure go ahead mr. Felberg through you mr. Chair so the report that we brought forward on April 28 sought to seek approval for the contribution agreements for that St. Vincent de Paul project and then four other projects including the Hill and Huron at the May 13th council council gave us direction to separate out the highly supportive and the traditional affordable housing projects of which St. Vincent de Paul is one of those so this the the report or the memo that you saw on the community and protective services meeting two weeks ago is what we’re dealing with today which will actually award that contribution agreement allow us to execute that agreement with St. Vincent de Paul the folks of 195 Dufferin water place and cross-cultural learning center so this doesn’t have an impact on that. Thank you worship. Thank you your worship and so trying to figure out how to word this I may have the definition slightly wrong but I will trust staff to correct me on this and so if an applicant is coming forward with an application setting aside affordable and highly supportive for a moment but if they’re coming forward for an application for a rooming house or a halfway house something of that nature they actually have to come forward with a zoning bylaw amendment and then we have to approve that location am I correct in that? Mr. Felberg. Through you Mr. Chair so yes they would it’s actually not permanent housing either what we’re talking about when we’re talking about affordable and highly supportive housing we’re talking about apartments which are self-contained units, rooming houses and some of the other forms or uses that you talked about are not that that type of housing or residential use. Go ahead Deputy Mayor. Thank you so I recognize that may be the case although I and not to cross the big with staff but I think highly supportive housing is sometimes meant to be transitional as well not necessarily a permanent situation for everyone although I recognize for some folks it may be a more permanent situation but I do think that the impact that highly supportive can have on a neighborhood can be similar to what we see in a boarding house type situation excludes of the fact that the rooms are individualized more and highly supportive housing than they are in a rooming house so I’m inclined to support this because I do think it’s complementary to the prior motion and because it’s specific to highly supportive housing so we’re not talking about general affordable housing projects like the St Vincent de Paul one we’re not talking about supportive housing where we may have accessible units or things like that with some some day services for people with what perhaps mobility challenges or developmental challenges who need a lower level of support. We are talking about highly supportive housing projects and I do see how there’s concern in neighborhoods from some of the results we’ve seen in some situations not all but certainly in some and so I I think hearing staff’s answers so far and recognizing that and again I’m gonna go through you to staff but my understanding is highly supportive housing use as long as the property is already zoned residential they would not be coming forward for zoning by law amendment through tech. Through you Mr. Chair that is correct. Thank you and so that’s why I’m inclined to support this because in other situations we do get through zoning by law amendments an opportunity to say yay or nay as we did earlier today in the PEC report about a number of applications that were not highly supportive housing but we’re zoning changes nonetheless and so I’m inclined to be supportive of this one I do think that it is a situation where there’s a different impact on the neighborhood and it is in some ways a change in zoning if not by definition in terms of how the usage is rolling out so I’ll listen to what others may have to say on this but I think I’m supportive of Council getting the approval on contributions where it’s specific to highly supportive housing. Any other speakers to this on the amendment? Okay this is on the amendment we’re gonna open that for voting.

[3:26:59] Closing the vote motion carries 10 to 4. Okay I just need a mover for the as amended motion now. Council for I don’t know if you’re willing to move the as amended yet okay and a seconder for as amended motion. Council ramen okay on the as amended motion now any discussion okay seeing none we’re gonna open that for voting. Thank you closing the vote motion carries 14 to 0. Council for our thank you that leaves us with item 8 that’s 4.3 on the agenda the RFP 224 - 227 approval of the template agreement or contribution agreement for highly supportive housing projects at 248 256 Hill Street and 644 646 here on Street as it relates to bill number 182. Okay that’s on the floor I look for any speakers go ahead Councillor Stevenson. Thank you to keep this moving along again there’s I have an amendment that staff helped me prepare I’d like to move that now and I’ll read it out but the motion be amended to include a new part that reads as follows the civic administration be directed to include provisions in all agreements related to forgivable loans for highly supportive housing that allow council to require repayment of the loan or imposes other consequences if the agreed-upon operating standards are not being met. Just give me one second Council. Yeah so before I get a seconder Council I just want to be clear because I know there was a discussion about is this going to apply to future agreements if it applies to the current agreements there’s bylaws already attached to this so it may be more appropriate for a referral if it’s these agreements if it’s future agreements then it’s something that could be incorporated so I just need some clarification before I seek a seconder out which way you’re going because we can’t couldn’t change a by-law like that on the fly at council so it would be more of a referral to do this if it’s for future agreements then it’s fine we could consider this motion because it wouldn’t impact current bylaws before us today. Well as much as I would love it to apply to these two and if my colleagues want that and would be willing to support a referral I would love that I’m assuming that’s not going to be favorable and so I’m looking for future projects so that we’re not delaying it but like I said if there is consensus for that I would love it but I’m assuming there isn’t and I’m proceeding as though it’s just for forward projects future projects. I just want to make sure Mr. Fellberg’s like I’ve that was my interpretation that bylaw would have to be changed for now future you could actually incorporate.

[3:31:09] Through the chair to the extent the motion is being amended to refer to future agreements the current by-law before council will not need to be amended the current by-law is approving a template contribution agreement it may be helpful to civic administration as well on this motion to perhaps have some further clarification on what operational standards are being referred to so the you know the agreements that are before council and one which has already been approved do have remedies you know one of which is to require repayment of the loan if certain standards aren’t met so you know it would be helpful to the extent that council is directing civic administration to build in these requirements to understand what you know what council believes is missing so we’re gonna if you’re okay with it put in future I think I because I can’t do a straw poll to see who’s gonna do what people can amend to take it out if they’re supportive of now and then I’m not sure if you want to put anything in about the operational standards you’re talking about otherwise it’s kind of just open ended to civic admin given there’s already some remedies in the existing agreements so I don’t have any other clarification and then I can seek for a second I just want to make sure that emotion is functional before I put it on the floor yeah I did confer with staff to try to get the appropriate wording here the idea is that these are 25 year agreements and contracts and if you know something were to be not going in the right direction I would love for future councils to have the ability to have some leverage to ensure that we’ve got safe buildings and safe housing for people so I’m okay with leaving it as is and leaving it up to staff I’m assuming there’ll be contracts that will stipulate so we’re gonna add in future we’re gonna leave it as is I’m gonna look to see if there’s a seconder for it now as it’s read Councillor Hillier’s willing to second so what I do is make sure that’s on the screen people can take a look at it so they can read it and we can have we can have the amendment is on the floor go ahead okay thank you so again just looking to put some safeguards into this we had a situation at 122 baseline that I know was not highly supportive but we are saying that the residents likely could have should have been highly supportive residents and we had city staff looking after that and still we ran into issues fortunately we’ve got LMCH and city staff making the rectifications but these are we’re venturing into something new it’s gonna be different organizations running these who may have leadership changes over time as well right we had the building at 446 King Street which was again at the end of its 25 or 30 year commitment where we had a board that wasn’t even functioning many of the people had passed away or were in nursing homes and you’ve got a building with vulnerable women in it that are that are so this is an opportunity Council is funding five million dollars here to these two projects and for this this is the one example but for future projects there’ll be millions of dollars over 25 year commitments that will just give staff and council the ability to leverage improvements if they were to be needed so that’s that’s really my point is that we’re protecting future councils and residents in those communities that that we’ve got some leverage in terms of financial pullback to be able to incentivize the changes that are needed okay other speakers council so my first question is through the chair to staff probably legal staff don’t the existing contracts typically have as part of their boilerplate pauses that that try to explain what a material breach is so that the remedies under the contract can be exercised aren’t they typically already there you can go ahead when you’re ready through the charity agreement does does provide that if the terms and conditions of the agreement aren’t met that one of the potential consequences is the city requiring the repayment of the loan go ahead thank you my next question is in that case what does this amendment add to what’s already typically as a as a matter of contractual law in the contracts because what I’m thinking this is pretty redundant but help me with that if you can thank you go ahead yeah through the chair that is why I was seeking some clarification you know and in my in my opinion the agreements already meet the requirements of this motion go ahead council trust thank thank you as I understand the rules of statutory construction we tried to avoid redundant clauses and what would you I’ll be careful about how I phrase this so I’m not giving a legal opinion but based on what you just said and based on my reading of the amendment this seems redundant and I’m trying to understand what additional provisions this adds and I think you just answered that so I’ll move on to my next question which is is there a risk that applicants might look at this and say this this this additional language gives me costs for concern because not only is it in the contractual language where there’s a whole body of contract law interpretation that would help us determine this but we’re putting this in a in a separate by law on top of that well is that is that going to have a maybe chose somewhat of a chilling effect on organizations who are willing to come forth and submit to this process so with respect I’m not going to have staff answer or speculate on whether a clause would have a chilling effect on an applicant that’s that’s not something our staff can determine whether or not someone’s going to apply or not based on a particular clause so if you’re making your debate that’d be great well I’ll I’ll just say then and it’s it’s my position as a counselor who it’s my position as a counselor that this could have a deleterious effect on the on the on the groups that are willing to come forward here furthermore I think that if we’re going to re incorporate into a bylaw material that’s already in a contract there should be more clarity in terms of what our meaning is and I don’t I don’t think this motion has been very well thought out because if it had been better thought out and I say that with all due respect I think we would see some examples or or some indication of how this goes beyond the typical contract language so I am going to vote against this this motion I’m going to urge my my colleagues to vote against this amendment and I’m I’m satisfied that our legal staff is is is capable of drafting and reviewing our contracts to make sure that there’s language in there that would protect us so with that I’ll just say please vote no on this okay other speakers to the amendment counselor you spoke to the amendment already in well you’re in the middle of an amendment one second so counselor with respect I can’t give the floor back when you’ve already spoken to then move a motion to go into camera but I will say this if your amendment passes there’d be a new as amended motion you’d be able to speak again you could move a motion to go into camera at that point if the motion fails you basically just stood up to move the amendment so it would go back to the main motion you’d still have the floor you can move your motion to go into camera then but in the middle of the amendment where points have been made other counselors are debated I I’m not gonna something in the procedure by that allows me to yield the floor back to you then then to ask a motion to go into camera so I think we have to deal with the amendment unless someone else gets on the speakers listen asked to go in camera just to be just technically correct okay may I offer clarity to what a colleague just said in terms of what I meant in terms of the whether it was repetitive or not because because the contract talks about capital not operational yeah so no because the call the counselor didn’t ask you like a question and then and then it’s now sat down and then that would essentially be debate so I can’t I just can’t give you the floor back on that but so I respectfully I just want to make sure the rules are followed equally go ahead Councilor Pribble yes go ahead thank you Mr. Chair question to the staff and to the legal advice we just received that the contractual agreements they include certain conditions but those conditions are they only capex oriented are they service-oriented as well and if there are not service-oriented potentially I would see this as operating standards being included additional tool for our staff to include in the contractual agreements to protect the corporation go ahead at this time I would invite Council to make a motion to go in cameras that I can provide some further advice on this matter Councilor Pribble I would like to take advantage of it and go into camera thank you just let me get a reason to read it so Councilor Pribble is gonna say Council convene in closed session for the purpose of considering the following that a matter of subject is solicitor client privilege including communications necessary for that purpose with respect to the approval of the template contribution agreement for highly supportive housing projects at 248 to 256 Hill Street and 644 to 646 Huron Street that’s the reason to go to camera okay so I need a seconder for that Councilor Stevenson seconds right you can’t technically can debate going in camera I don’t know if anybody wants to okay then we’re gonna open that we’re gonna open that vote those in the vote motion carries eleven three okay we’re gonna move into closed session again which means we’re gonna move to committee room five again and we’ll be back when we’re done okay thanks please be seated okay Councilor Pribble he asked us to go into camera we did you only use 30 seconds you don’t have to use it all but you saw the floor no thank you all my concerns and my questions were answered and I’m very satisfied and actually what’s in front of us I will not be supporting this motion thank you right other speakers to the amendment seeing none then we can open the amendment for voting Stevenson frozen the vote motion fails for Mr. Stevenson you started that off by presenting the amendment don’t know if you still wanted to speak to the yet matter but I could kind of resume your time since we’re kind of back to where we back to where we left off before the amendment was paid now you need to speak now so I’m not going to be supporting this motion and it’s for a lot of reasons personally like I’m speaking to the location at 644 646 Huron Street because that one’s in my ward I do think it’s a good location for highly supportive housing and definitely for affordable housing but I am concerned about the operations the operational risk to the building and to the neighborhood and I think that going forward I think we need to talk more about what’s working what’s not working at the highly supportive housing that we have right now address some of the community concerns address some of the concerns of residents who are in these buildings that do have safety concerns they’ve some of them have reached out to me so I think there’s just some extra work that needs to be done before I can get behind supporting this and maybe there’s something more I can do prior to it operationalizing but for now I’m not going to support it I would have supported as affordable housing I did support it when this development came forward as affordable housing my concern is the highly supportive what is the tenancy profile that’s going in if we’re talking about the tenants at 122 baseline that are problematic where it’s been referred that oh what they needed was highly supportive I’m not sure what wraparound supports would create the level of safety that the community and the residents in that building want until I get those clarifications I’m not going to support so on behalf and on behalf of the residents in that neighborhood there’s a lot of vulnerable families a lot of high density apartments this is it matters that we do this in a way that wins for everybody highly supportive housing should be beneficial to everybody and there’s a lot of comparisons to oh well we do supportive housing now well if you look at those it’s not this kind of support will have supportive housing it’s not mental health and addictions to the point where people are having extreme issues being housed that’s not what’s been done when you look at highly supportive housing in other cities if you read the tenancy profile and read who they’re directing it’s not the most challenging and so when we go oh it’s working there it should work here it matters the details matter the level of care matters the type of addiction treatment matters the quality and quantity of the wrap around services matter and they say well 82 we’re not gonna put 82 high acuity in this building because that would be too many so we’ll mix it in well who gets mixed in with the problems we have that at 122 baseline and we have women and children who fled domestic violence in with some very high security issues and just things that weigh on them in terms of not being able to access communal spaces and feeling safe and that feeling of well-being that I know we all want for the residents of the city so I will not be supporting other speakers to the main motion I’m gonna speak I’ll have Councilor Plaza take the chair thank you I have the chair recognizing and timing Mayor Morgan so thank you so I will be supporting the agreements before us for a couple of reasons one I know there’s been some comparisons to 122 baseline it’s not a comparable situation this is not a facility that fell under the parameters of the highly supportive housing plan it was not a facility that had the proper supports wrapped around the few individuals not all but the few individuals who would have required them in that facility this is a plan for a highly supportive housing facility that operated by CMHA who is an organization who helps thousands and thousands of people across this province who are experts in mental health and addictions you know exactly what they’re doing and they will have to execute these buildings under the template agreements that we were talking about which have significant parameters tied to it about how they should operate under Council’s approved highly supportive housing plan which means the people in these facilities are going to have the proper care wrapped around them to support them by an organization who is known across the province to do this work very well so I know that we can make comparisons I know not every building in the past has worked out the way it should and I know that we can always seek improvements but I have absolute confidence in the work of CMHA in their ability to execute these buildings operate them successfully and continue to do the work that they’ve been doing in this city and across this province to help people who are struggling on the streets with complex needs with those needs with mental health supports with addiction supports with primary health care supports wrapped around them in a place that will allow them to be successful so happy to support what’s before us today and I hope my colleagues do as well thank you return the chair to the Mayor Morgan other speakers okay so the no other speakers this is the main motion as it came through Mitty I will open that recording closing the vote motion carries 13 to 1 that’s for our thank you Mayor that concludes the ninth report of the community and protective services committee great thank you very much the second report of the budget committee Councillor Losa go ahead thank you mayor Supreme Court the budget committee I’ve been asked to pull item 4 being 4.1 which would have contained the business case discussion we had in it I’m not sure if there’s anything else colleagues would like pulled okay so 4.1 will be separate is there any other things colleagues like pulled no okay go ahead thank you I will put items 1 through 3 5 and 6 on the floor okay those are on the floor any discussion on those seeing none we’ll open that for voting those in the vote motion carries 14 to 0 thank you I will point I’m 4 4.1 on the floor I know one colleague would like to do some other things with it so I will just remind colleagues that this was the staff had their list of business cases that they will create these were votes to exclude those cases within the budget committee reports your voting records there you can refer to it remember what we did and just when colleagues move through this discussion just be sure to say which appendix in which number as there was several appendix and many numbers thank you Councillor I know this has been asked hold separate do you have any sense on what people want separate or should I just go to a speaker’s list I would go to a speaker’s list and perhaps start with Councillor ramen okay Councillor ramen go ahead thank you and through you so I am looking to pull separate to appendix B which refers to roadway planning and design reduced road network improvements do you want me to go through each one individually or yeah let me just let me just clarify for colleagues I think the best place to look for this is in the budget committee report section 4.1 with the items that were actually finally approved and it’ll it’ll be a bit of an awkward motion for us to navigate because if you recall how we did this was in D we said we essentially said give us a business case for everything except these things right so these are the things that we’re not getting a business case on so I know you know that I just trying to provide some clarification so people know that as we pull these separately and you vote on them if we do or if we modify them these are things that we have decided not to get a business case on so if you vote against them it reverts back to getting a business case on them and if they stay in there then they continue to be not so I’ll provide that context but and Councillor ramen go ahead and outline all the things you want to do so okay so yeah so I’m looking to vote on those items so that we can separate those out so we could vote again on those items particularly because I want to include them the others are appendix C reference to to recycling and composting stop multi-residential green bin cart pilot projects and further expansion which is VI appendix C referring to at number three recycling and composting stop collecting blue box material from non-eligible source any as via VI appendix that’s it that one NES is the last part of that one okay so it’s just to make sure we’re right in D you want to have separated out so that you could potentially vote against them which would give them a business case II V BI and V II yeah can I speak to well maybe just I will let you speak and I give a full debate but there might be other things people want separate I might just maybe deal with that now that way I can get the clerks kind of working on the motions and as we debate is there anything anybody else would like separate there’s still I II and IV sorry IV that are just kind of all bulk together everybody’s okay with leaving those okay then sure you can go ahead and debate I’ll add you to speakers list oh second okay all right I’m gonna try something here to save some time Councillor ramen is looking to deal with these all separate because then vote against them so that we could have business cases on them we’re not making a decision on this and then you can play around with the business cases all you want once we get them is anybody objective doing them all together great okay that might say okay we’re gonna work it out so that we can we could vote on those all together and then so that’ll come out as a block I’m gonna get that ready I’m gonna have you I don’t know if we have if you have to move them because they’re moved by the chair we’ll just make sure we vote on them separately so there’s no mover and seconder it’s just we’ll vote on those as a block if they’re defeated they become business cases again so you can go ahead and speak thank you much appreciated so I was reflecting on our conversation and budget and I was thinking about first I couldn’t remember which way I voted on some of these so I had to go back and take a look at that but second I was thinking about when I was reading the titles was I having maybe more of a knee jerk reaction because I was interested in making sure that that service continues and so I had shared during budget my desires actually defined ways to potentially look at reserve fund opportunities for these three items and I’ve identified a few opportunities but I need staff to really dig in to see whether or not it’s possible for us to use the reserve fund to be able to fund these differently so for that reason I’m looking for a business case otherwise I feel like I will be bringing these forward as amendments during budget and we will be discussing them but we won’t have as much time to give or won’t be able to give staff as much time to really dive into what are the possibilities with using the reserve funds what are the what are all the more than a paragraph log details that we need to know regarding these items so that’s my rationale behind asking for these to be separated out and asking that we vote against me so that we can have this discussion again these were big items as well I just want to again bring forward a little bit of the reflection on the cost here you know we’re talking five hundred thousand dollars for the multi-residential green bin pilot which again it’s a pilot to me that makes a lot of sense to come from the reserve so for that reason I’ll be looking for those opportunities if we’re not if it’s not supported here I may look for opportunities to bring it through amendments but I think this would give everyone the most information to make an informed decision at that time okay next I have Deputy Mayor Lewis then I have myself thank you worship and through you I will say first of all I agree with everything Councilor ramen just said I would also like to have DI roadway maintenance reduced summer sidewalk maintenance voted on again I was absent from the budget meeting due to the surgery so I want to vote on that one too I will say with everything else that we are getting business cases on I think it’s good to get business cases on these two doesn’t mean that I’m necessarily going to support my budget time but having more detailed information than what was available to us in the Budget Committee agenda I am very very interested in having I have you know and I’m going to speak just briefly to the sidewalk maintenance piece I have sidewalks in my ward that have had asphalt patching rather than concrete patching and quite honestly in some cases it seems to be better maybe that was just a great asphalting crew but nonetheless I’d like to see what the dollars and cents are and maybe I support it maybe I don’t you know I would support getting business cases on pretty much any of these although I certainly understand and I did go back and watch the YouTube video why colleagues don’t want a business case on the closure of the five waiting pools and I I’m fine with that too I don’t need a business case on that right now for the small amount of value that we get out of that versus what we’re giving to the community through that value I think there’s a larger discussion about waiting pool futures but closing them right now is not something I’m interested in I think all of these including pilot projects blue box material collection from non eligible sources these are nice things to have and but maybe I noted in the budget business case maybe there was a charge for NES blue box material collection and maybe that is something we should be pursuing so I do want to get the business cases I want the information to consider whether or not when it comes to the budget if they’re included or if they’re not included whether or not I want to support or amended in any way shape or form so I’m I’m very happy to support this and move forward see where it takes us with some more information in the future and like I said agree with everything Council Raman said if there’s some opportunity to find some savings if there’s some opportunity to find ways to fund these in different ways even in a time-limited fashion noting the pilot project is absolutely one I don’t think should be added to the tax levy I think it should be coming from one time source until we decide whether we’re going to continue it or not so I’ll be a yes to getting as many business cases as possible alright I’ll turn the chair to Council Raman thank you I have the chair go ahead thanks so I want to thank my previous colleagues who spoke already for their comments this is what I said at the budget committee meeting I may not necessarily be supportive of all these but I think for most of them with the exception I was clear at the budget committee on the waiting pools for most of them I’m very comfortable getting the business case and I’ll tell you why because we’re not making a decision right now it’s been as been articulated and if colleagues want to actually look at these by scaling them by doing some of them by finding alternate sources of financing for them by maybe charging a user fee for them and I think one example of that is the multi residential green bin program right like sure we could subsidize it right now it’s 100% it might not need to be 100% for a service that we’re not required to provide and that owners of those buildings are required to figure out so it’s very difficult to have that conversation and pull those apart if we don’t have the information before us as a business case I’ll tell you the other advantage of the business case is at some point I’m going to have the responsibility of course with your guidance and thought in the public discussion of actually tabling a budget for you and you might like some of the things I put in that budget but you may not like others if you have the business case before you and I choose not to put it in it sets you up much better for making an amendment to the budget that I table with the information then not so I’m I’m one in this case for appreciating that our staff put together some difficult decisions bringing that forward let’s see what those those those pieces say I’ll decide to put them in or not I’ll probably seek some of your guidance on that and ultimately you’ll be set up to make adjustments to that in the budget process with much more information than you’d otherwise have so I’d encourage you to support defeating a number of these so that we can actually get the information I’m not asking you today to make a decision on these at all nor are our staff nor nor are we required to do so we just we just get a little more information on a number of them and I’ll those are my comments thanks thank you returning the chair do you have nobody on the list other speakers go ahead Councillor Palazzar thank you mayor as always I know that you’re hearing bring me all the information I’ll decide later staff time is fine is limited and just realizing as well that I know some colleagues are thinking about different sources of financing we have some things that are ongoing operational expenses and they’re just not one time thing for one-time funding as always mr. Murray and mr. Bones available to start pulling that information now if you’re thinking of a certain reserve fund as you’re having these conversations and making your notes to just make note of that and give staff a heads up now as you know we have budget coming up shortly to go over some timelines and things and we have a more informed decision when we know how much workload of what’s coming as that budget conversation will still need to happen in the fall along with the public participation meetings other colleagues okay so here’s here’s the order of operations we’re gonna do we’re gonna seem a little bit out of order but I think it’s the best way to make these decisions because we can still go back and craft the main motion we’re gonna deal with the items that Councillor ramen asked to be pulled out a deputy mayor Lewis I’m gonna deal with your separate just in case there’s not unanimity everybody else has agreed we could deal with these other ones altogether so we’re gonna vote on D.I.I. V. V.I. and V.I.I. we’re gonna put that on the floor I have the budget chair put that on the floor if they pass if you vote yes we do not get a business case for these if this is defeated they’re no longer part of the motion we will get business cases on them just so people know and decide how they want to vote so that’s what’s gonna be on the floor first and then we’ll move to D.I. after that so right everybody’s clear okay we’ll open that for voting sorry 4 shouldn’t just say sorry 4 wasn’t part of my inclusion well one second we’re just gonna cancel this vote because there’s one item that was included that Councillor ramen did not want to get deputy mayor Lewis once included I’ll include it separately and that is V.I.I. so here’s what’s going to be included in this vote I.I. which is a 2 V which is Appendix C reference number 2 V.I. which is Appendix C reference number 3 that’s it I see nods we’ll open that and just as people are voting I’ll remind you if you vote against getting business case for these things if you vote for you’re not that’s our applicants those in the vote motion fails 7 to 7 all right so that means we get a business case for those things okay the next vote we’re gonna deal with is sorry so it means no but the direction coming was that we wouldn’t get one so so now we are so it’s contrary to what committee was yes so now we are gonna get one because these are committee items that did not make it through council they were defeated on a tie vote so they made it through committee but not through council sorry question if it was contrary to committee’s recommendation because committee recommended not to receive a business case yeah we’re not making a motion we’re just splitting the vote so these are enough yeah it’s just the vote is split out into different pieces it’s still committees recommendation it’s just parts of the committee’s recommendation are getting defeated right now because yeah an amendment that would be counted the committee’s recommendation if it was amendment but right now it’s just divided and we’re just voting down parts of it okay or supporting it it depends on how the votes go so the next vote is D.I. and it’s B reference one so this is the one that deputy mayor Lewis asked for separate so we’ll open that for voting closing the vote motion carries nine to five okay so that one stays in and the committee’s recommendation is approved does anybody object to us doing i.i. which is appendix b item three urban forestry v.i.

[4:33:36] appendix b number five quatix waiting pools and v.i.i. appendix c reference four parks and horticulture maintenance of local traffic circles we do all those together yeah i see okay i see nuts okay we’ll open that for voting then those in the vote motion carries 14 to 0 okay so those unanimously stand uh now we have to deal with everything that was remaining the other clauses of uh 4.1 in the report which are options be received um directed to continue with budget right sizing opportunities business case for inclusion in the mayor’s budget that’s the approximately six million that staff are working towards finding proceed with implementing the user fee changes yet being noted uh from the correspondence those are all together open that for voting then those in the vote motion carries 14 to 0 made councilor paloza thank you i would uh that concludes this report i will note the next budget committee report agenda is out so have a look at it and if you want i think in it this is your chance thank you okay i’ll have council rummon uh under added reports reported from our closed session thank you uh this is the ninth report of council in closed session uh the progress was made with respect to item 4.1 is noted on public agenda 6.1 10 i c s c as well as the additional reasons uh for sppc 7 4.2 and cpsc uh item 8 4.3 okay thank you um deferred matters we have none inquiries i’m aware of one from council frank thank you yes and it’s my understanding that amo has um prepared some summary information about bill five and i was hoping to hear from our representative a little bit more regarding that yes um i have councilor hopkins if you’re willing to uh address that you could answer that uh inquiry thank you um your worship and thank you councilor frank uh amo did uh present a submission uh to the standing committee on um lon um bill five protect ontario unleashing our economy i uh will make sure i will be brief uh amo did uh amo commends the provincial government for its strong decisive leadership regarding the threat of terrorists uh this is a critical opportunity for ontario to demonstrate its commitment to reconciliation and stronger relationships with indigenous holders it also is ensuring continued protection for the environment including species of risk and natural habitats it also included in its submission ensuring the use of special economic zones to override local bylaws should only occur with host municipal support and in cases of extraordinary need seses would allow the province to unilaterally override municipal decision-making by exempting seses from municipal bylaws and should not be used to exempt projects from bylaws that impact municipal revenue including these seas in conclusion amo asked that the province commit to respecting municipal autonomy and working with amo thank you for allowing me to speak on uh behalf of amo’s submission thank you um any other inquiries see yes councilor trossa this is out of order i’m sure i’ll find out really soon but pursuant to rule 18.4 following an inquiry i’d like to make a motion to adopt for the london city council to endorse the amo position and that is that is directly in response to an inquiry question which i think was very clearly answered and i think it’s appropriate for us to show support for amo by doing this so um just a couple things for you to consider council um yes 18.4 does allow for a motion to be made after uh an inquiry um does not prescribe that the person who did the inquiry is required to make the motion so i’m allow another member of council to do that so um it does include a note that says oh well get the clerk’s notes which i always read um that this is related this is because it’s emergent at the council it would fall under the emergent motions parameters of passing the motion which would require two thirds of members present um to pass so you’d be putting a motion on the floor that would be required two thirds of the members of council to pass it for it to be approved so i just want you to have that context um and then you can decide if you want to put the motion on the floor so yes you need a seconder as well so would you like to do that yes you would yeah so let me just the clerk wants me to clarify why i’m why i’m ruling it to be emergent and not able to be referred to a future meeting uh the legislature was expected to rise on Thursday this is a bill that’s before the legislature expected to be fast-tracked this is pretty much the only time that the the council could carve out a position on this before um that legislation would likely be passed so that’s why i’m deeming it to be emergent um and and why falls under the emergent piece of this and why it will require two thirds and why it can be dealt with today and not referred to a standing committee as we would normally do in most cases under an inquiry that requires an action just so colleagues are clear so council you also have to seek leave to actually introduce the motion um so that’s the first step what we’re going to do so pursuant to section 20.1 of the procedure bylaw that leave be granted to allow councilor estrosa to move emotion related to amos submission related to bill five direct Ontario by unleashing our economy act 2025 can you seconder for that council process moving it not amenable or not debatable requires two thirds so a seconder for that councilor hopkins you’re willing to second okay all right not amenable not debatable this is just on the leave piece uh we’ll open that for voting closing the vote motion fails nine to five okay so that did not reach the two thirds required to provide leave so you cannot make the motion counselor so we won’t deal with that matter today before council as an emergent matter yeah we we can’t know you didn’t you didn’t achieve leave and you don’t get to debate can i ask a question no well as long as it’s a point of order be okay uh so we’ve done inquiries uh emergent motions we’ve pretty much done that now bylaws okay bylaws going to let you know colleagues based on everybody giving feedback on the things they want separate we have 30 votes on bylaws which are going to be 10 separate groups of voting um i’m gonna i’m going to attempt to speed this up um so i’m going to tell you how i’m going to do this believe or not councilor cutty and i have agreed pretty much everything through the through the course of the meeting so i’m just going to make councilor cutty the mover and me the seconder for all of these things if you’re okay with that councilor cutty because we didn’t we weren’t against anything today yes you know i i think we agree a lot of times but thank you you’re okay so that’ll speed things up because we got the same mover and seconder for everything that we’re about to go through um and then i’m going to do it uh and these will be recorded both still but because there were only two or three people who are on who wanted these pulled i’m going to uh basically one second also we’re going to do this in the system if we start to get bogged down like e-scribe was before i’m going to switch to hand votes we’re just going to record the people against everybody who isn’t against is four that way we still have the recorded votes but we’re but we’re going to try it in the system we should be able to go quick because they’re preloaded in but if e-scribe brogs down or people start to get problems i’m not going to wait to fix it we’re just going to switch to hand vote and get this wrapped up okay i see nods all right so we’re going to start with uh bills 181 and 182 together i’m going to read these as that people know what they’re voting on these are the contribution agreements for affordable housing uh and the contribution agreements for highly supportive housing from the cpsc report so these two are together moved in the first reading is uh moved and seconded by myself our counselor cutting myself will open first reading for voting closing the vote motion carries 13 okay and second reading same mover and seconder any debate on second reading okay we’ll open that for voting closing the vote motion carries 13 to 1 third reading same mover and seconder will open that for voting and carries 13 to 1 all right the next uh vote will be um bill 183 which is the annual shareholder resolutions for london hydro first reading same mover and seconder will open that for voting closing the vote motion carries 14 to 0 second reading is there any debate on second reading same mover and seconder she carries 14 to 0 third reading um same mover and seconder will open that for voting she carries 14 to 0 okay next so our third vote will be uh two different bills uh it’s uh bill 184 and 192 it’s the community efficiency retrofit programs reserve fund and the establishment of a dc incentive program uh property tax supported reserve fund so those two reserve fund pieces together um else are cutting and i will move in second we’ll open first reading for voting closing the vote motion carries 14 to 0 second reading any debate same mover and seconder seeing none we’ll open that for voting carries 14 to 0 third and final reading same mover and seconder will open that for voting and carries 14 to 0 right the fourth vote that we’ll do is bills 198 and 217 that includes the one the policies uh access and privacy policy as well as the uh free of fear services for all policies so those two will be together answer cutting and i will move in second we’ll open first reading for voting carries 13 to 1 second reading any debate same mover and seconder seeing none we’ll open second reading he carries 13 to 1 third and final reading same mover and seconder we’ll open that for voting he carries 13 to 1 okay the next uh will be bill 240 which is 20 clerk road council cutting i will move and second it uh we’ll open first reading for voting motion carries 11 to 3 second reading uh same mover and seconder any discussion seeing none we’ll open this for voting motion carries 10 to 4 third and final reading we’ll open that for voting same mover and seconder and carries 10 to 4 okay the next vote will be bills 196 and 243 this is the official plan amendment in zoning by-law at 168 meadow lily road south council cutting i will move in second to we’ll open first reading carries 10 to 4 second reading uh same mover and seconder any discussion seeing none we’ll open that for voting motion carries 10 to 4 third and final reading else for cutting i will move in second we’ll open that for voting carries 10 to 4 right the next vote is the zoning by-law amendment debt 1890 and 1900 uh killed kill gorman way that’s bill 242 mover and second we’ll open first reading and carries 11 to 3 second reading any discussion same mover and seconder seeing none we’ll open that for voting and carries 11 to 3 third and final reading of this bill same mover and seconder we’ll open that for voting carries 11 to 3 next is the housekeeping zba at 801 sarnia this is bill 246 council cutting i will move in second we’ll open that for voting and carries 14 to 0 i wouldn’t need to be separate um we’ll go to second reading on that any discussion seeing none we’ll open that for voting carries 14 to 0 third and final reading of this item we’ll open that for voting motion carries 14 to 0 right the next one that’s separate is the uh bill related to the expropriation for the wellington gateway project that’s vote number nine that’s bill 247 we’ll open that for voting and carries 13 to 1 second reading any discussion on second reading for this one seeing none we’ll open that for voting motion carries 13 to 1 third reading uh bill 247 same mover and seconder we’ll open that for voting and carries 13 to 1 okay we’re at everything else so hopefully everybody got their votes separated they wanted yes counselor mccallister i’m sorry i just wanted to confirm was there one associated with the heritage designation okay perfect don’t check yeah there’s no bylaws associated with the conflict yeah all right good questions to ask though that’s why that’s why i put it okay uh so this is everything else then and um yeah so i’ll it’s counselor cutting i will move in second we’re on first reading so open that for voting motion carries 14 to 0 second reading of all these bills any discussion on them seeing none we’ll open that for voting carries 14 to 0 third and final reading of these bills cutting i will move in second we’ll open third reading and enactment for voting motion carries 14 to 0 and that concludes the bylaws which means we’re left with adjournment so i’ll look for a motion to adjourn counselor mccallister seconded by counselor ferrera they’ll do this by hand all those in favor of adjournment motion carries we are adjourned thank