Open Council

12th Council Meeting

Open Council

12th Council Meeting

July 22, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:03 PM; it being noted that Councillor E. Peloza (at 5:58 PM) was in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that Councillor C. Rahman disclosed a pecuniary interest in item 8, clause 2.8, of the 11th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, having to do with RFT 2025-041 Bridging Supports - Housing Stability Services, by indicating that Fanshawe College is her employer.

That it BE NOTED Councillor S. Lehman discloses a pecuniary interest in item 15, clause 5.2, of the 11th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, having to do with the Funding Request for Hamilton Road BIA and the Old East Village, by indicating that he is a member of the Downtown London Business Association.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Franke

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

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

     

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending lease by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.1/12/ICSC)

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

     

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending lease of office space by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.2/12/ICSC)

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

     

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.3/12/ICSC)

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

 

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending disposition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.4/12/ICSC)

4.5    Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Litigation/Potential Litigation

       

A matter pertaining to advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, and advice with respect to litigation involving various personal injury and property damage claims against the City. (6.5/12/ICSC)

4.6    Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction for Negotiation Purposes  

     

A matter pertaining to a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.1/11/CPSC)

4.7    Personal Matters About Identifiable Individual

       

A matter pertaining to personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees, with respect to the Awarding of the 2025 Queen Elizabeth Scholarships. (6.2/11/CPSC)

4.8    Confidential Information Supplied by Canada/Province/Territory/Crown Agency of the Same  

     

A matter being considered pertains to information explicitly supplied in confidence to the municipality by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing pursuant to subsection 239(2)(h) of the Municipal Act, 2001. (6.1/12/PEC)

4.9    Solicitor-Client Privilege  

     

A matter being considered pertains to advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers or employees of the Corporation; the subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect to appeals of Council’s decision to designate pursuant to Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act the properties at 183 & 197 Ann Street (the “Subject Property”) at the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”), and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation. (6.2/12/PEC)

4.10    Solicitor-Client Privilege

       

A matter being considered pertains to advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers or employees of the Corporation; the subject matter pertains to litigation or potential litigation with respect to appeals of Council’s decision to refuse an application for zoning by-law amendment regarding 1494 Commissioners Road West (the “Subject Property”) at the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”), and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation. (6.3/12/PEC)

4.11    Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Personal Matters About Identifiable Individual / Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations  

     

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees and labour relations or employee negotiations with respect to the Councillor’s Office. (6.1/9/SPPC)

4.12    Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

       

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose and directions and instructions to officers and employees or agents of the municipality; a proposed or pending acquisition of land by a local board; a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations information, supplied in confidence to the municipality or local board, which, if disclosed, could reasonably be expected to prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of a person, group of persons, or organization; and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality or local board. (6.2/9/SPPC)

4.13    Litigation/Potential Litigation / Solicitor-Client Privilege Advice  

     

A matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. (6.3/9/SPPC)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

That Council convenes In Closed Session, from 1:13 PM to 1:48 PM.

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

5.1   11th Meeting held on June 24, 2025

2025-06-24 Council Minutes 11

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the Minutes of the 11th Meeting of the Municipal Council, held on June 24, 2025, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

6.1    Official Plan Review of The London Plan: Draft Urban Growth Boundary Review (Community Growth)

       

  1.    P. Lombardi, Siskinds Law Firm - on behalf of Mandeep Singh Sahi        

  2.    P. Lombardi, Siskinds Law Firm - on behalf of Mt. Elgin Dairy Farms Ltd., London Dairy Farms Ltd., and Sequin/Farhi Holdings Corporation        

  3.    (ADDED) P. Verkley, Middlesex Federation of Agriculture

       

6.2  (ADDED) Biosolids Management Master Plan - Notice of Completion        

  1.    Councillor E. Peloza  

     

6.3    (ADDED) Affordable Homeownership Program Relaunch        

  1.    Councillor S. Stevenson

       

6.4    (ADDED) Federation of Canadian Municipalities Community Efficiency Financing Agreement for BetterHomes London        

  1.    Councillor S. Stevenson

       

6.5    (ADDED) Funding Request for Hamilton Road BIA and the Old East Village BIA        

  1.    C. Luistro, Hamilton Road BIA        

  2.    K. Morrison, Old East Village BIA

       

6.6    (ADDED) 6309 Pack Road (39T-25502/OZ-25023)

  1.    A. Johnson        

  2.    L. Liu        

  3.    A. and N. Essak        

  4.    K. McKee        

  5.    R. Wimperis        

  6.    A. Papmehl        

  7.    L. Mirzai        

  8.    Mandeep Burmi        

  9.    J. Kononiuk        

  10.    R. Mann        

  11.    S. Wimperis        

  12.    C. Evans        

  13.    Maninder Burmi        

  14.    Melissa Knowler        

  15.    J. Maddigan        

  16.    North Talbot Homeowners Association        

  17.    G. Dietz        

  18.    C. Maddigan        

  19.    B. Morgan        

  20.    E. Pellarin        

  21.    J. Mitsopoulos        

  22.    J. Whitlock        

  23.    M. Creador and S. De Abreu        

  24.    J. Currie        

  25.    P. Ball        

  26.    L. Vanier        

  27.    M. Norry and J. Tapics        

  28.    J. Eckert        

  29.    C. Oudman        

  30.    J. Roscoe        

  31.    J. McMartin        

  32.    Mike Knowler

       

6.7    (ADDED) 2nd Report of the Governance Working Group

  1.    C. Taylor, Strong Towns London        

  2.    C. Butler

       

6.8    (ADDED) 2024 Climate Emergency Action Plan Progress Report

  1.    Councillor S. Franke

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   12th Report of Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee

2025-07-16 ICSC Report 12

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 12th Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of items 8 (2.1), 9 (2.8), and 10 (4.1).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by C. Rahman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.2) Appointment of Consulting Engineers for the Trunk Watermain Installation Program 

Motion made by C. Rahman

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

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

i)    AECOM Canada ULC BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the detailed design of Contract 3 – Southdale Road West from 300m West of Wonderland Road to 160m East of Wonderland Road, in the total amount of $213,457.00 (including contingency), excluding HST; and

ii)    Stantec Consulting Limited BE APPOINTED consulting engineers to complete the detailed design of Contract 5 – Gainsborough Road from Coronation Drive West to Coronation Drive East, in the total amount of $223,634.13 (including contingency), excluding HST;

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated July 16, 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

8.1.3   (2.3) Municipal Drain Petition for Bailey Drain

Motion made by C. Rahman

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

 

a)    the petition for a new branch to the Bailey Municipal Drain, located in the area of Robins Hill Road and Rebecca Road, BE ACCEPTED by the Corporation of the City of London under Section 4 of the Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D. 17; and

b)    Mike DeVos P. Eng. of Spriet Associates London Limited BE APPOINTED as Consulting Engineer under Section 4 of the Drainage Act.

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.4) Appointment of Consulting Engineer: RFP-2025-096 Southdale Road West Improvements - Colonel Talbot Road to Bostwick Road

Motion made by C. Rahman

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

a)    the proposal submitted by AECOM Canada ULC BE ACCEPTED to provide consulting engineering services to complete the detailed design and tendering for the Southdale Road West Improvements – Colonel Talbot Road to Bostwick Road at an upset amount of $542,940, excluding HST, as per Section 15.2 (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for this assignment BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated July 16, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’;

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.5) Contract Amendment: Detailed Design and Tendering for Highbury Avenue North Sidewalk and Cycle Track

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 contract amendment to add watermain and road renewal components to the detailed design and tendering for Highbury Avenue North Sidewalk and Cycle Track:

a)    the contract with BT Engineering Inc. BE INCREASED by $205,960 to a total agreement value of $351,622, excluding HST, to complete additional detailed design and tendering services, in accordance with Section 20.3 (e) of the City’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated July 16, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’;

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.6) Housing-Enabling Core Servicing Stream - Sunningdale Road West Improvements from Wonderland Road to Villagewalk Boulevard-Transfer Payment Agreement By-law Introduction (Relates to Bill No. 280)

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 Housing-Enabling Core Servicing Stream – Sunningdale Road West Improvements from Wonderland Road to Villagewalk Boulevard – Transfer Payment Agreement:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated July 16, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 22, 2025, to:

i)    approve the Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement for the Housing-Enabling Core Servicing Stream between His Majesty the King in right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Infrastructure (the “Province”) and The Corporation of the City of London (the “Recipient”);

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

iii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports or the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure to approve further Amending Agreements to the Agreement;

iv)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute any amendments to the Agreement approved by the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports or Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure; and

v)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports (or delegate) to execute any financial reports required under this Agreement;

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

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (2.7) 2024 Portfolio Investments Report

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the 2024 Portfolio Investments Report, providing a summary of the performance of the City of London’s investments, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (2.1) Biosolids Management Master Plan - Notice of Completion

Motion made by C. Rahman

That on the recommendation of Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the Biosolids Management Master Plan:

a)    the Notice of Completion BE FILED with the Municipal Clerk;

b)    the Biosolids Management Master Plan report BE PLACED on public record for a 30-day review period; and

c)    the recommended implementation plan presented in the Biosolids Management Master Plan BE APPROVED following the 30-day public review period and following responses to any comments received in accordance with the Master Planning process;

 

it being noted that if comments are received that require changes to recommendations in the Biosolids Management Master Plan, the Plan will return to Council with revised recommendations;

 

it being further noted that the pace for advancing the projects recommended through this Master Plan will be further refined during design and may also require adjustment to meet the constraints of existing program budgets, and any Council decisions made through the upcoming 2028-2031 multi-year budget process;

it being pointed out that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated July 15, 2025 from C. L. Ivanitz, Law Clerk, Beckett Personal Injury Lawyers with respect to this matter.

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the Biosolids Management Master Plan - Notice of Completion BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee to allow Civic Administration to host an additional Public Information Center (PIC) for the Biosolids Management Master Plan;

it being noted that the preferred meeting location for items impacting this community is 424 Glanworth Drive – Christ Church Chapel of Ease.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.9   (2.8) Expropriation of Lands - Phase 2 - Wellington Gateway Project Civil Works (Relates to Bill No. 287)

Motion made by C. Rahman

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, approval BE GIVEN to the expropriation of land as may be required for the Wellington Gateway Project, and that the following actions be taken in connection therewith:

a)    the application be made by The Corporation of the City of London as Expropriating Authority to the Council of The Corporation of the City of London as approving authority, for the approval to expropriate the land required for Phase 2 of the Wellington Gateway project;

b)    the Corporation of the City of London serve and publish notice of the above application in accordance with the terms of the Expropriations Act;

c)    the Corporation of the City of London forward to the Chief Inquiry Officer any requests for a hearing that may be received and report such to the Council of The Corporation of the City of London for its information; and

d)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated July 16, 2025 as Schedule “B”, BE INTRODUCED at the Council meeting to be held on July 22, 2025, to authorize the foregoing and direct the Civic Administration to carry out all necessary administrative actions.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

8.1.10   (4.1) London Emergency Services Campus

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure and the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, and on the opinion of the Director, Planning and Development, the proposed Emergency Services Campus BE LOCATED on city-owned land at 3243 Manning Drive; it being noted that the funding for this facility is included in the capital plan in the adopted 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget;

it being noted that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee received a communication and heard a verbal delegation from C. Colvin, P. Verkley and K. McLean, Ontario Federation of Agriculture and received a communication dated July 15, 2025 from C. Ivanitz, Law Clerk, Beckett Personal Injury Lawyers with respect to this matter.

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

That pursuant to section 9.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, Councillor E. Peloza BE PERMITTED to speak an additional two minutes with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

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

the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED, in consultation with London Police Services, to submit to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee an Executive Summary regarding the Emergency Services Campus.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

At 2:06 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair.

At 2:10 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Item 10, clause 4.1, as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the London Emergency Services Campus:

a)    the proposed Emergency Services Campus BE LOCATED on city-owned land at 3243 Manning Drive; and

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED, in consultation with London Police Services, to submit to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee, an Executive Summary regarding the Emergency Services Campus;

it being noted that the funding for this facility is included in the capital plan in the adopted 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget;

it being further noted that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee received a communication and heard a verbal delegation from C. Colvin, P. Verkley and K. McLean, Ontario Federation of Agriculture and received a communication dated July 15, 2025 from C. Ivanitz, Law Clerk, Beckett Personal Injury Lawyers with respect to this matter.

8.2   11th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2025-07-14 CPSC Report

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 11th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of items 3 (2.3), 7 (2.7), 8 (2.8), 11 (2.11), 12 (2.12), 14 (5.1), and 15 (5.2)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) 2nd Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 2nd Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on June 12, 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.4) New Temporary Traffic Signal

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the installation of a temporary traffic signal at the intersection of Cheapside Street and Campus Drive (private street) BE APPROVED as a construction mitigation for the approximate duration of the 2025/2026 college school year. (2025-T07)

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (2.5) Award of Engineering Services to Provide Design, Tendering and Contract Administration Services for Construction of a New Residential Drop-Off Depot as well as Other Ancillary Features as Part of the Expansion of the W12A Landfill

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 July 14, 2025, related to the Award of Engineering Services to Provide Design, Tendering and Contract Administration Services for Construction of a New Residential Drop-Off Depot as well as Other Ancillary Features as Part of the Expansion of the W12A Landfill:

a)    WSP BE APPOINTED to carry out detailed design, tendering assistance, and contract administration in the total amount of $896,534 including a contingency of $116,939 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 15.2 (g) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for the work identified in (a) above, BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Sources of Financing Report” as appended to the above-noted staff report;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with these purchases; and,

d)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2025-E07/F18)

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (2.6) Community Energy System Green Municipal Funds (GMF) Application Support

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 July 14, 2025, related to the Community Energy System Green Municipal Funds (GMF) Application Support:

a)    the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Green Municipal Fund application led by Century Centre Developments Inc., in partnership with the City of London, for grant funding to support the completion of a business case and feasibility study for outlining the design of proposed low-carbon community energy systems at the Century Centre Developments Inc. development at 1067-1071 Wellington Road BE SUPPORTED by Council; and,

b)    the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Green Municipal Fund application led by Old Oak Developments Inc. (Old Oak), in partnership with the City of London, for grant funding to support the completion of a business case and feasibility study for outlining the design of proposed low-carbon community energy systems at the Old Oak development at 850 Highbury Avenue North BE SUPPORTED by Council. (2025-E17)

Motion Passed

8.2.9   (2.9) Housing and Homelessness Dashboard Project Plan

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the staff report dated July 14, 2025, with respect to the Housing and Homelessness Dashboard Project Plan, BE RECEIVED. (2025-S11/S14)

Motion Passed

8.2.10   (2.10) Information Report on Executed Purchase of Service Agreements for Housing Stability Services

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the staff report dated July 14, 2025, with respect to an Information Report on Executed Purchase of Service Agreements for Housing Stability Services, BE RECEIVED. (2025-S11/S14)

Motion Passed

8.2.13   (2.2) 3rd Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee (ESACAC) from the meeting held on June 26, 2025:

a)    the 2025 ESACAC Work Plan, as appended to the above-noted report, BE APPROVED by the Municipal Council;

b)    the following actions be taken with respect to Green Development Standards:

i)    the Civic Administration BE INFORMED that the ESACAC will follow up on the anticipated staff report on these matters in July or August; and,

ii)    it BE NOTED that the communication from B. Samuels with respect to the Green Development Guidelines was received;

it being noted that a verbal update was provided by K. Edwards, Manager, Community Planning, with respect to these matters;

c)    clauses 1.1, 1.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 5. 1 to 5. 3, 5.5 and 5.6 BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that a verbal delegation from B. Samuels, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.3) Affordable Homeownership Program Relaunch (Relates to Bill No.’s 277 and 281)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the staff report dated July 14, 2025 related to the Affordable Homeownership Program Relaunch BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee to allow the Civic Administration to come back with a business case for the Province requesting reallocation of the funds to another affordable housing purpose (for example, repairs to LMCH social housing, repairs to affordable rental units, rent affordability assistance or housing related supports).

Motion Failed (2 to 13)

At 3:23 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair.

At 3:26 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 July 14, 2025 related to the Affordable Homeownership Program Relaunch:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at Municipal Council on July 22, 2025, to:

i)    approve the standard form Homeownership Loan Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law;

ii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate, to insert the relevant information regarding the Borrower and loan details into the standard form Homeownership Loan Agreement;

iii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate, to approve and execute Homeownership Loan Agreements based on the standard form Homeownership Loan Agreement authorized and approved above;

iv)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate, to approve and execute amending agreements to the above-noted Homeownership Loan Agreements;

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at Municipal Council on July 22, 2025 to amend By-law No. A. -6971-187 being “A by-law to establish the Municipal Affordable Homeownership Revolving Loan Reserve Fund” by deleting section 2 and replacing it with the following section 2:

“The monies standing in the Fund shall be used by The Corporation of the City of London (the “Corporation”) for the purpose of providing loans under an affordable housing program (AHP) to eligible purchasers.”;

it being noted that there is no impact to the Multi-Year Budget and this program will be delivered using the Municipal Affordable Homeownership Revolving Loan Reserve Fund established as part of the Federal and Provincial subsidy guidelines with no additional funds from the Roadmap to 3,000 or other City sources. (2025-S11)

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by A. Hopkins

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

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 3:50 PM and reconvenes at 4:03 PM.

8.2.7   (2.7) Federation of Canadian Municipalities Community Efficiency Financing Agreement for BetterHomes London (Relates to Bill No.’s 278 and 279)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated July 14, 2025 related to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Community Efficiency Financing Agreement for BetterHomes:

 

a)    the staff report dated July 14, 2025 related to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Community Efficiency Financing Agreement for BetterHomes London BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee to allow Civic Administration to report back on a concierge model using Budget Case P-56 1 a) 2024 staffing costs (to assist the public in utilizing the loan retrofit programs available through federal/provincial and energy providers); and

b)    the Mayor BE REQUESTED to send a letter to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, advocating for long-term federal funding to support municipal climate action and energy efficiency initiatives, without requiring municipal cost-sharing

Motion Failed (4 to 11)

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 July 14, 2025 related to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Community Efficiency Financing Agreement for BetterHomes London:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on July 22, 2025, to:

i)    approve the Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, to be entered into between The Corporation of the City of London and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for the purpose of the provision of funding to support the development and implementation of the BetterHomes London home energy retrofit program; 

ii)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted agreement;

iii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, or designate, to be the Duly Authorized Officer to approve and execute any forms or documents on the City’s behalf necessary to fulfill the City’s obligations under the above-noted agreement;

iv)    approve the Service Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, to be entered into between The Corporation of the City of London and the Clean Air Partnership for the purpose of turn-key development and delivery of the BetterHomes London energy retrofit program;

v)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Service Agreement; and,

vi)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, or designate, to approve and execute amending agreements to the above-noted Service Agreement, provided that such agreements do not require additional funding or are provided for in the City’s current budget;

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on July 22, 2025, to:

i)    authorize the undertaking of energy efficiency and climate resilience works on private residential property as local improvements under the BetterHomes London Program, as set out in Schedule 1 as appended to the above-noted by-law, for the purpose of raising all or part of the cost of the work by imposing special charges on lots upon which all or some part of the local improvement is or will be located; and,

ii)    authorize the City to enter into Property Owner Agreements as provided for in the above-noted Schedule “1” hereto with such terms and conditions consistent with Schedule “1” hereon, such additional terms and conditions as required by the Ontario Regulation 586/06 and such additional terms and conditions required by the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, or their designate, and the City Solicitor and in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor and that the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure or their designate be authorized to execute the Property Owner Agreements and such ancillary documents as necessary to facilitate the program described in Schedule “1” hereto; and,

c)    the Civic administration BE DIRECTED to report back on the final program details including the results of additional community partner consultation and recommendations regarding the implementation of the BetterHomes London home energy retrofit program. (2025-E17)

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

8.2.8   (2.8) RFT 2025-041 Bridging Supports - Housing Stability Services

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development and the Senior Manager, Procurement and Supply Services, the staff report dated July 14, 2025, with respect to RFT-2025-041 Bridging Supports – Housing Stability Services, BE RECEIVED. (2025-S11/S14)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.2.11   (2.11) Municipal Rental Assistance Program Allocation for Indigenous Led Housing Supports

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Health and Social Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated July 14, 2025, related to Municipal Rental Assistance Program Allocation for Indigenous Led Housing Supports:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to allocate up to 30% of the 2025 municipal rent supplement increase (approved at $1 million annually) to Atlohsa Family Healing Services for the administration of portable housing benefits supporting Indigenous identifying individuals experiencing homelessness, to be delivered through Atlohsa’s existing Housing First and Rapid Rehousing programs;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to engage with Indigenous-led housing providers, including but not limited to, Ontario Aboriginal Housing Services (OAHS) and the Native Inter-Tribal Housing Co-op, and Atlohsa Family Healing Services with the intent to support expanded partner-led delivery of Municipal Rental Assistance Program portable housing benefits beginning in 2026, and to develop appropriate administrative pathways for such partnerships;

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

d)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London entering into new and/or amending existing Purchase of Service Agreements with agencies identified through the City’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy to deliver the approved services. (2025-S11/S14)

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

8.2.12   (2.12) Update to Contribution Agreement with Chelsea Green Community Homes Society

Motion made by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, with respect to the staff report dated July 14, 2025 related to an Update to the Contribution Agreement with Chelsea Green Community Homes Society, the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to release funds attributed to the outstanding Roadmap grant with a remaining balance of $476,332, less 10% holdback payable upon occupancy, and amend the Municipal Contribution Agreement to reflect the change of affordable units under existing delegation.

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the staff report dated July 14, 2025 related to an Update to the Contribution Agreement with Chelsea Green Community Homes Society BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee in order for Civic Administration to continue to work with Chelsea Green Community Homes Society to refine the process and the number of units from the City’s waitlist.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.14   (5.1) Request to Review the School Crossing Guard Program

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication from Councillor S. Franke, dated July 14, 2025, related to a Request to Review the School Crossing Guard Program:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to include a budget business case to increase the School Crossing Guard Program by $200,000 a year and find an appropriate source of funding;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review the School Crossing Guard policy and report back at a future meeting of CPSC to provide any suggestions for improvements, including but not limited to number of school crossing guards per school; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to engage on the review of the standards of the School Guard Crossing Policy with all public school boards and private schools within the City of London to discuss the issues of school crossings at all London schools;

it being noted that communications and verbal delegations from M. Grimminck, A. Tate, C. Mitchell and E. Johnston, with respect to this matter, were received. (2025-C12)

At 4:45 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair.

At 4:48 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication from Councillor S. Franke, dated July 14, 2025, related to a Request to Review the School Crossing Guard Program:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to include a budget business case to increase the School Crossing Guard Program by $200,000 a year and find an appropriate source of funding;

Motion Failed (5 to 10)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication from Councillor S. Franke, dated July 14, 2025, related to a Request to Review the School Crossing Guard Program:

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review the School Crossing Guard policy and report back at a future meeting of CPSC to provide any suggestions for improvements, including but not limited to number of school crossing guards per school; and,

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication from Councillor S. Franke, dated July 14, 2025, related to a Request to Review the School Crossing Guard Program:

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to engage on the review of the standards of the School Guard Crossing Policy with all public school boards and private schools within the City of London to discuss the issues of school crossings at all London schools;

it being noted that communications and verbal delegations from M. Grimminck, A. Tate, C. Mitchell and E. Johnston, with respect to this matter, were received. (2025-C12)

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Item 14, clause 5.1, as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication from Councillor S. Franke, dated July 14, 2025, related to a Request to Review the School Crossing Guard Program:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review the School Crossing Guard policy and report back at a future meeting of CPSC to provide any suggestions for improvements, including but not limited to number of school crossing guards per school; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to engage on the review of the standards of the School Guard Crossing Policy with all public school boards and private schools within the City of London to discuss the issues of school crossings at all London schools;

it being noted that communications and verbal delegations from M. Grimminck, A. Tate, C. Mitchell and E. Johnston, with respect to this matter, were received. (2025-C12)

8.2.15   (5.2) Funding Request for Hamilton Road BIA and the Old East Village BIA

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the communication from Councillor H. McAlister, dated July 7, 2025, with respect to a Funding Request for the Hamilton Road BIA and the Old East Village BIA, BE REFERRED to the August 11, 2025 meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee in order to allow time to receive a list of the earmarked items for the remaining balance for the COVID 19 Relief Funding from the Hamilton Road and Old East Village BIAs;

it being noted that verbal delegations from C. Luistro, K. Morrison and B. McGlone, with respect to this matter, were received.

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion BE AMENDED to add a new part b) that reads as follows:

b)  the Downtown London BIA BE REQUESTED provide a list of expenditures from their portion of the Covid 19 Relief Funding

Motion Passed (8 to 6)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Failed (3 to 11)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication from Councillor H. McAlister, dated July 7, 2025, with respect to a Funding Request for the Hamilton Road BIA and the Old East Village BIA:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to allocate one-time funding of $62,500.00 from the Community Investment Reserve Fund to the Hamilton Road BIA to allow them to continue their joint private security services contract with the Argyle BIA for 2026; and,

it being noted that verbal delegations from C. Luistro, K. Morrison and B. McGlone, with respect to this matter, were received.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication from Councillor H. McAlister, dated July 7, 2025, with respect to a Funding Request for the Hamilton Road BIA and the Old East Village BIA:

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to immediately reimburse the Old East Village BIA the amount of $34,179.62 from the Community Investment Reserve Fund for previously expended costs related to private property clean-ups, graffiti removal, and enhanced safety and security measures.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Item 15, clause 5.2, as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication from Councillor H. McAlister, dated July 7, 2025, with respect to a Funding Request for the Hamilton Road BIA and the Old East Village BIA:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to allocate one-time funding of $62,500.00 from the Community Investment Reserve Fund to the Hamilton Road BIA to allow them to continue their joint private security services contract with the Argyle BIA for 2026; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to immediately reimburse the Old East Village BIA the amount of $34,179.62 from the Community Investment Reserve Fund for previously expended costs related to private property clean-ups, graffiti removal, and enhanced safety and security measures;

it being noted that verbal delegations from C. Luistro, K. Morrison and B. McGlone, were received  with respect to this matter.

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That, pursuant to section 6.4 of the Council Procedure By-law, a change in order of the Council Agenda BE APPROVED, to provide for the 12th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee to be considered before the 11th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

8.4   12th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2025-07-15 PEC Report

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 12th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of item 11 (3.8).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That pursuant to section 11.10 of the Council Procedure by-law, the Council BE PERMITTED to proceed beyond 6:00 PM.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) Bill 17, Protect Ontario by Building Faster andSmarter Act, 2025

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following report with respect to Bill 17, Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.2) Quick Communities Update

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following actions be taken with respect to the Quick Communities Update:

a)    the staff report dated July 15, 2025, which incorporates comments from relevant stakeholders related to the Quick Communities motion, BE RECEIVED; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to forward the above-mentioned staff report to the ReThink Zoning team to consider options for future zones that support temporary and permanent uses with this form of construction.

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (3.1) 15 Capulet Walk (O-25061) (Relates to Bill No. 284)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following action be taken with respect to the application of Paul Kitson relating to the property located at 15 Capulet Walk, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated July 15, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 22, 2025, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Transit Village Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan;

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

  •    a communication dated June 18, 2025, from R. Coates;

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

  •    S. Allen, MHBC Planning;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendment would permit residential intensification within the Built-Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area that is appropriate for the existing and planned context of the site and surrounding neighbourhood;

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

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (3.2) 555 - 559 & 567 Commissioners Road West (Z-25058) (Relates to Bill No. 296)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Tricar Properties Ltd. (c/o Siv-ik Planning and Design) relating to the properties located at 555-559 & 567 Commissioners Rd W:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated July 15, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 22, 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 (R1-9) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-4(_)*H21 Zone);

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

i)    ensure the proposed building has a distinct base by providing a minimum ground floor height of 4.0m to allow large windows and a high proportion of transparent glazing to promote an active frontage and passive surveillance;

ii)    avoid retaining walls along the public street frontage to ensure the street-level façade is active and comfortable for pedestrians; and, 

iii)    as per the proposed site concept, submitted as part of this application, carry forward the following:

  •    provide the walkway network within site design connecting proposed building entrances, parking areas and the public sidewalk;

  •    locate the parking behind the building, at the rear of the property;

  •    locate the retaining wall to the rear of the site to adjust grade changes and creating a comfortable pedestrian environment along the street frontage; and, 

  •    provide entrances with front style lockable doors provided at the front façade of the building’s ground storey the public street;

iv)    consider relocating all above-ground mechanical equipment (e.g. gas meter, electric transformer, etc.) away from the building frontages, entrances and the street facing facade at the rear of the proposed building, or screen it with all-season landscaping;

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

  •    a communication dated July 11, 2025, from M. Davis, Siv-ik Planning and Design;

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

  •    M. Davis, Siv-ik Planning and Design;

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

8.4.6   (3.3) 1658-1678 Evangeline Street (Z-25049) (Relates to Bill No. 297)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following action be taken with respect to the application of Younger Homes Holding Inc. (c/o Monteith Brown Planning Consultants) relating to the properties located at 1658-1678 Evangeline Street, the proposed attached revised by-law, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 22, 2025, to amend Zoning Bylaw No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2026), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM a Residential R2 (R2-3) Zone TO a Holding Residential R4 Special Provision (h-8*R4-6( )) Zone;

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

a)    Planning and Development supports the inclusion of principal entrances with canopies fronting Evangeline Street, as well as the walkway connections from individual townhouse units to the street and recommends that these features be carried forward;

b)    CPKC Rail recommends the following conditions:

i)    all construction, continued maintenance, access, ingress and egress must be done without entering railroad right of way; this includes but is not limited to maintenance of any equipment, lawn care, snow plowing and emergency exits via windows or doors; and, 

ii)    a condition be inserted in all property and tenancy agreements and offers of purchase and sale for all dwelling units in the proposed building(s):

“CPKC and/or its assigns or successors in interest has or have a railway right-of-way and/or yard located adjacent to the subject land hereof with operations conducted 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, including the shunting of trains and the idling of locomotives; there may be alterations to, or expansions of, the railway facilities and/or operations in the future, which alterations or expansions may affect the living environment of the residents in the vicinity; notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and/or vibration attenuating measures in the design of the development and individual dwellings, CPKC will not be responsible for complaints or claims arising from the use of its facilities and/or its operations on, over, or under the aforesaid right-of-way and/or yard.”

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

  •    T. Legrew, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants;

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

8.4.7   (3.4) 523 First Street (Z-25053) (Relates to Bill No. 298)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following action be taken with respect to the application of Chryssoulis Holdings Inc. (c/o MHBC Planning) relating to the property located at 523 First Street, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated July 15, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 22, 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 Light Industrial (LI1) Zone TO a Light Industrial Special Provision (LI1(_)) Zone;

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

a)    CN Rail encourages the following conditions:

i)    undertake an analysis of noise; and, 

ii)    a warning clause be inserted on land title, in all development agreements, offers to purchase, and agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease within 300m of the railway right-of-way;

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

  •    J. Gaudet, MHBC Planning; and, 

  •    A. Chryssoulis, AMTEL;

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 Building policies, Place Type policies, and the Our Tools policies; and, 

  •    the recommended amendment would facilitate the reuse of an otherwise underutilized building with an appropriate range of uses at an intensity that can be accommodated within the existing building;

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

Motion Passed

8.4.8   (3.5) 376-390 Hewitt Street and 748 King Street (Z-25054) (Relates to Bill No. 299)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Stantec Consulting Ltd. relating to the property located at 376, 378, 380, 382, 386 & 390 Hewitt Street and 748 King Street, the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property by extending the Temporary Use (T-79) Zone for a temporary period of two (2) years, BE ACCEPTED with the considerations for additional extension as outlined in the Council Resolution dated May 14, 2024.

it being noted that an updated by-law will be brought forward to the Municipal Council meeting on July 22, 2025 for approval;

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

  •    B. Blackwell, Stantec Consulting Ltd.;

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

Motion Passed

8.4.9   (3.6) 2034 Wilton Grove Road (Z-25051) (Relates to Bill No. 300)

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 Mt. Elgin Dairy Farms Ltd. (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.) relating to the property located at 2034 Wilton Grove Road, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated July 15, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 22, 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 a portion of the subject property FROM an Agricultural (AG2) Zone TO an Agricultural Special Provision (AG2(*)) Zone and Agricultural Special Provision (AG2(**)) Zone;

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

  •    D. Sikelero Elsenbruch, Zelinka Priamo;

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 Farmland Place Type & Environmental Review policies; and,

  •    the proposed use is considered appropriate within the adjacent land uses and considers both the long-term protection of agricultural resources and the long-term compatibility of uses;

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

Motion Passed

8.4.10   (3.7) 1225 Wonderland Road North (OZ-25050) (Relates to Bill No.’s 285 and 301)

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 Canadian Commercial Development (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.) relating to the property located at 1225 Wonderland Road North:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated July 15, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 22, 2025, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Shopping Area Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated July 15, 2025, as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 22, 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 Community Shopping Area (CSA4) Zone to a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-7()*H30) Zone and a Community Shopping Area Special Provision (CSA4()) Zone;

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

i)    provide transparent glazing for the active uses at-grade (e.g., lobby area, amenity spaces etc.) to create an active interface and alleviate potential Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concerns; and, 

ii)    ensure there is a safe and continuous pedestrian connection throughout the site connecting the proposed building to Sherwood Forest Mall, parking areas, amenity spaces, and the public sidewalks along Gainsborough Road and Wonderland Road North;

d)    pursuant to Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, as determined by the Municipal Council, no further notice BE GIVEN in respect of the proposed by-law as the purpose of the recommended special provisions to the Community Shopping Area (CSA4) Zone is to recognize existing site conditions;

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

  •    M. Campbell, Zelinka Priamo;

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

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

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

  •    the recommended amendments would permit residential intensification within the Built-Area Boundary and Primary Transit Area that is appropriate for the existing and planned context of the site and surrounding neighbourhood;

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

Motion Passed

8.4.11   (3.8) 6309 Pack Road (39T-25502/OZ-25023) (Relates to Bill No.’s 286 and 302)

At 5:58 PM, Councillor E. Peloza leaves the meeting.

At 5:59 PM, Councillor E. Peloza enters the meeting virtually.

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the application of Southside Construction Ltd. relating to the property located at 6309 Pack Road BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee to allow Civic Administration time to work with the Applicant to review opportunities to reduce the proposed building heights and density of the development.

Motion Failed (5 to 10)

At 6:18 PM, Councillor E. Peloza leaves the meeting.

At 6:36 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair.

At 6:40 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Southside Construction Ltd. relating to the property located at 6309 Pack Road:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated July 15, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 22, 2025, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, to:

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

ii)    REVISE Map 3 – Street Classifications of The London Plan to REALIGN the Neighbourhood Connector Street classification for Pioneer Parkway;

iii)    ADD a new Specific Policy to the Neighbourhoods Place Type applicable to the subject lands identified as the north portions of Blocks 244-247 on the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a maximum height of up to twelve (12) storeys and a maximum height of sixteen (16) storeys with a maximum of 300 units per hectare on the northeast portion of Block 247; and ADD the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas;

iv)    REVISE Schedules 4, 8 and 9 of the Southwest Area Secondary Plan to redesignate the subject lands FROM Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential TO Low Density Residential, High Density Residential, Open Space and Environmental Review to align with the lot and block layout, and road configuration within the applicant’s proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision; and to REALIGN the Neighbourhood Connector Street classification for Pioneer Parkway;

v)    REVISE the Southwest Area Secondary Plan by ADDING a site-specific policy to the North Lambeth Residential Neighbourhood to permit a maximum height of twelve (12) storeys and up to maximum density of 300 units per hectare for the north portion of Blocks 244 to 247 of the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision; and,

vi)    REVISE the Southwest Area Secondary Plan by ADDING a site-specific policy to the Bostwick Residential Neighbourhood to permit a maximum height nine (9) stories with a maximum density of 200 units per hectare may be permitted for Block 243 and a maximum height of sixteen (16) storeys with a maximum density of 300 units per hectare may be permitted on the northeast portion of Block 247;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated July 15, 2025, as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 22, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR4) Zone and Environmental Review (ER) Zone, TO a Residential R2 Special Provision (R2-2()) Zone, Holding Residential R2 Special Provision (h-1*R2-2()) Zone, Residential R4 Special Provision (R4-6()) Zone, Holding Neighbourhood Facility and Residential R6/R9 Special Provision (h-8*NF1/R6-5()/R9-7()H20D200) Zone, Holding Neighbourhood Facility NF1 and Residential R9 Special Provision (h-8*NF1/R9-7()H30D200) Zone, Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-8R9-7(_)H30D300) Zone, Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-8R9- 7()H30D250) Zone, Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-1h-8R9-7()H30D250) Zone, Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-1h-8R9-7()H38D250) Zone, Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-8*R9-7()H38D250) Zone, Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-8*R9-

7()H38D300) Zone, Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-8*R9-7()H50D300) Zone, Holding Open Space (h-1*OS5) Zone and two Open Space (OS5) Zones;

c)    the Planning and Environment Committee REPORT TO the Subdivision Approval Authority the 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 in the development of each block through the site plan process;

ii)    street oriented design and safe and accessible pedestrian connections; and,

iii)    screen any surface parking from the street by buildings or an all-season landscape buffer; and,

iv)    an updated shadow study for each block as it develops to assess and further minimize potential impacts on surrounding properties;

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

  •    a communication dated June 30, 2025, from A. Essak; 

  •    a communication dated July 3, 2025, from J. Liu; 

  •    a communication dated July 6, 2025, from A. and R. Hey; 

  •    a communication dated July 8, 2025, from L. Huang and D. Allen;

  •    a communication dated July 6, 2025, from North Talbot Homeowners Association (NTHA); and, 

  •    a communication dated July 11, 2025, from N. Ooms, Sifton Properties Limited;

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

  •    L. Jamieson, Zelinka Priamo; 

  •    L. Grabowski, AGM; 

  •    J. Kononiuk;

  •    R. Wimperis; 

  •    J. Madagan;

  •    S. Wimperis;

  •    P. Antonio;

  •    J. Whitlock;

  •    P. Ball;

  •    C. Richardson;

  •    S. Gray;

  •    A. Gidwards;

  •    J. Rossco;

  •    A. Essak;

  •    J. Mitsopolous;

  •    M. Pepe;

  •    E. Mayo;

  •    N. Ooms;

  •    M. Steen; and,

  •    Resident;

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;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to The London Plan;

  •    the recommended amendment conforms to the Southwest Area Secondary Plan; and,

  •    the recommended amendment will permit development that is considered appropriate and compatible with the existing and future land uses surrounding the subject lands. The proposed height increase is strategically located on Pack Road, a Civic Boulevard, in proximity to the intersecting streets of Pack Road, Bostwick Road and the future Bradley Avenue West extension, which is classified as an Urban Thoroughfare; applying increased height and intensity closest to the node supports higher-density, transit-supportive development within the broader street corridor with a deliberate transition in building height along Pack Road and within the plan of subdivision to ensure compatibility with the existing and planned neighbourhoods;

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)

8.3   11th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2025-06-23 - PEC REPORT

At 6:45 PM, Councillors P. Cuddy and S. Hillier leave the meeting.

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 11th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of item 6 (3.3)

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) Information Report on ReThink Zoning Project

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the staff report dated June 23, 2025, related to the Information Report on Rethink Zoning Project, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) Community Advisory Committee on Planning Report

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 3rd Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on June 19th, 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (3.1) Official Plan Review of The London Plan: Draft Urban Growth Boundary Review (Community Growth)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the Section 26 Official Plan Review of The London Plan and Urban Growth Boundary Review:

a)    that the Draft Urban Growth Boundary Review (Community Growth) as appended to the staff report dated June 23, 2025, as “Appendix A” BE RECEIVED; 

b)    that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue consultation on the Draft Urban Growth Boundary Review (Community Growth) with the community, development industry, and local Indigenous communities; and, 

c)    that the report BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the findings of the Industrial Land Needs Assessment for Employment Areas will be presented to a future meeting of Council and incorporated into the Urban Growth Boundary Review;

it being further noted that following additional consultations, the Urban Growth Boundary Review will be presented to a future meeting of Council and forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for approval;

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

  •    M. Wallace, London Development Institute; 

  •    J. Zaifman, London Home Builders Association;

  •    M. Mussa; 

  •    L. Bloomer

  •    B. Samuels; 

  •    M.A. Hodge; 

  •    J. Menocha; and, 

  •    T. Grave; 

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

  •    a communication dated June 8, 2025, from B. Steele; 

  •    a communication dated June 9, 2025, from C. Jacob; 

  •    a communication dated June 4, 2025, from D. Milton; 

  •    a communication dated June 3, 2025, from E. Blokker; 

  •    a communication dated June 11, 2025, from M. Lucas; 

  •    a communication dated June 9, 2025, from M. Mackie; 

  •    a communication dated June 4, 2025, from N. Moss; 

  •    a communication dated June 11, 2025, from Nathaniel; 

  •    a communication dated May 29, 2025, from P. Verkley, Middlesex Federation of Agriculture; 

  •    a communication dated June 16, 2025, from T. Mathers; 

  •    a communication dated June 13, 2025, from K. & D. Gowanlock; and, 

  •    a communication dated June 19, 2025, from Chief, R. K. J. Miskokomon, Chippewas of the Thames First Nation;

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

8.3.5   (3.2) 2026 Growth Management Implementation Strategy (GMIS) Update

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth regarding the implementation of The London Plan growth management policies applicable to the financing of growth-related infrastructure works, the following actions be taken: 

a)    the 2026 Growth Management Implementation Strategy Update BE APPROVED as appended to the staff report dated June 23, 2025, as Appendix ‘B’; it being noted that: i. Stoney Creek SWMF 7.1 will be cancelled: 

ii)    Stoney Creek SWMF 8 will be rescheduled from 2028 to 2030; 

iii)    Stoney Creek SWMF 10 will be rescheduled from 2028 to 2030; 

iv)    Kilally South, East Basin SWM 2 will be rescheduled from 2026 to 2027; 

v)    Thornicroft Drain Natural Channel Improvements will be rescheduled from 2024 to 2026; 

vi)    North Lambeth SWMF P1 North will be rescheduled from 2029 to 2026; 

vii)    North Lambeth SWMF P1 South will be rescheduled from 2029 to 2027; 

viii)    North Lambeth SWMF P2 South will be rescheduled from 2026 to 2027; 

ix)    North Lambeth P3 (Dingman Tributary D4) will be rescheduled from 2026 to 2027; 

x)    Bradley Avenue Extension – Wonderland to Bostwick will be rescheduled from 2028 to 2033; 

xi)    Pincombe Drain SWMF 5 will be rescheduled from 2027 to 2030; 

xii)    White Oaks SWMF 4 Phase 1 will be rescheduled from 2027 to 2032; and, 

xiii)    Murray Mar SWMF 1 will be cancelled;  

b)    the Capital Budget BE ADJUSTED to reflect the timing changes associated with the projects in the above noted clause a); 

c)    that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a report on the implementation potential and next steps of proceeding with the following servicing improvement projects to support multi-unit housing using Housing Accelerator Funding: 

i)    Sewer Extension on Pack Road; 

ii)    Sewer Extension on Exeter Road;  

iii)    Hyde Park Road and Sunningdale Road Servicing Extension-Engineering Design; and,  

iv)    Hyde Park Pump Station Upgrade; 

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

  •    M. Wallace; London Development Institute;

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

8.3.7   (3.4) 3680 & 3700 Colonel Talbot Road (OZ-25013) (Relates to Bill No.’s 283 and 295)

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 MHBC Planning Ltd. relating to the property located at 3680 and 3700 Colonel Talbot Road: 

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated June 23, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 22, 2025, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, to:

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

ii)    REVISE Map 3 – Street Classifications of The London Plan to REALIGN the Neighbourhood Connector Street classification for Campbell Street North and Big Leaf Trail; 

iii)    ADD a new Specific Policy to the Neighbourhoods Place Type applicable to the subject lands identified as Blocks 12 and 20 on the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a maximum height of six (6) storeys on a Neighbourhood Connector; and ADD the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas; 

iv)    REVISE Schedules 4 and 9 of the Southwest Area Secondary Plan to redesignate the subject lands FROM Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Open Space and Environmental Review TO Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Open Space and Environmental Review to align with the lot and block layout, and road configuration within the applicant’s proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision; and to relocate the Neighbourhood Central Activity Node east of the Royal Magnolia Avenue and Campbell Street North intersection; and, 

v)    REVISE the Southwest Area Secondary Plan by ADDING a site-specific policy to the North Lambeth Residential Neighbourhood to permit a maximum height of six (6) storeys on Block 12; and maximum height of six (6) storeys and maximum density of 120 units per hectare on Block 20 of the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision; 

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated June 23, 2025, as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 22, 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 Neighbourhood Facility NF Zone, an Urban Reserve (UR4) Zone, and an Open Space (OS4) Zone TO a Residential R1 Special Provision/Residential R2 Special Provision (R1-3()/R2-1()) Zone; a Residential R2 Special Provision/Residential R4 Special Provision (R2-1()/R4-6()) Zone; a Residential R1 Special Provision/Residential R2 Special Provision/Residential R6 Special Provision/Residential R8 Special Provision (R1-3()/R2-1()/R6-5()/R8-4()) Zone; a Residential R6 Special Provision/Residential R8 Special Provision (R6-5()/R8-4()) Zone; a Residential R6 Special Provision/Residential R8 Special Provision/Convenience Commercial CC (R6-5()/R8-4()/CC6()) Zone; a Residential R6 Special Provision/Residential R8 Special Provision/Residential R9 Special Provision (R6-5()/R8-4()/R9-3(_)-H32-D120) Zone; a Residential R6 Special Provision/Residential R8 Special Provision/Residential R9 Special Provision (R6-5()/R8-4()/R9-3(_)-H32-D120) Zone; a Residential R6 Special Provision/Residential R8 Special Provision/Residential R9 Special Provision/Convenience Commercial CC Special Provision (R6-5()/R8-4(**)/R9-3(_)-H32-D120/CC6(*)) Zone; an Open Space (OS1) Zone; an Open Space (OS4) Zone; and an Open Space (OS5) Zone; 

c)    the Planning and Environment Committee REPORT TO the Subdivision Approval Authority the issues, if any, raised through the application review process for the property located at 3680 and 3700 Colonel Talbot Road; and,  

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

i)    incorporate massing and articulation into building facades along Colonel Talbot Road by including such elements as principal entrances, canopies, awnings, overhangs, transparent glazing, forecourts, patios, landscaping, and lighting. Ensure at-grade commercial uses have storefronts and principal entrances oriented to the public street;  

ii)    incorporate recesses, projections, balconies, and terraces to provide depth and variation in building form;  

iii)    incorporate building massing and articulation at street corners and intersections by including principal entrances, wrapped features, signages, and glazing;  

iv)    design the side elevation of any building fronting a public street with a similar level of massing and articulation as the front elevation;  

v)    ensure building orientation to public streets with principal entrances facing the street and walkway connections to public sidewalks;  

vi)    consider window drive lanes along the open space corridor for greater visual exposure to the natural feature and offering passive surveillance; and,  

vii)    screen any surface parking from the street by buildings or an all-season landscaped buffer; 

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

  •    S. Allen, MHBC;

 

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

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

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

iii)    the recommended amendments are appropriate and compatible with existing and future land uses surrounding the subject lands; and, 

iv)    the recommended zoning will support the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and facilitate an appropriate form, height, and mix of residential development in conformity with The London Plan and the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, as amended;

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

8.3.8   (5.1) Deferred Matter List

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the June Deferred Matters List BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (3.3) Environmental Management Guidelines Update (Relates to Bill No. 282)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Environmental Management Guidelines as appended to the staff report dated June 23, 2025, as Appendix 1 to Appendix “A”, BE ADOPTED as a Municipal Guideline Document; and, 

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated June 23, 2025, as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 22, 2025, to adopt the Environmental Management Guidelines, in accordance with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, policy 1713; 

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

  •    M. Wallace; London Development Institute;

  •    S. Levin; and, 

  •    L. Bloomer;

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 S. Lewis

That part b) of the motion BE AMENDED to read as follows:

b)    the revised, attached by-law, (Appendix “A”), BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 22, 2025, to adopt the Environmental Management Guidelines and to repeal By-law No. A.-8202-30 being “A by-law to adopt Environmental Management Guidelines”, in accordance with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, policy 1713;

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Item 6, clause 3.3, as amended, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Environmental Management Guidelines as appended to the staff report dated June 23, 2025, as Appendix 1 to Appendix “A”, BE ADOPTED as a Municipal Guideline Document; and,

b)    the revised, attached by-law, (Appendix “A”), BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 22, 2025, to adopt the Environmental Management Guidelines and to repeal By-law No. A.-8202-30 being “A by-law to adopt Environmental Management Guidelines”, in accordance with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, policy 1713;

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

  •    M. Wallace; London Development Institute;

  •    S. Levin; and, 

  •    L. Bloomer;

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

8.5   9th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2025-07-17 SPPC Report 9

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 9th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of item 4 (2.1), 7( 4.3) and 8 (4.4)

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.2) Letter of Resignation - Hyde Park Business Improvement Association

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the resignation of Terryanne Daniel from the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association Board of Management BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication from D. Szpakowski, General Manager/CEO, Hyde Park Business Improvement Association with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.3) Letter of Resignation - RBC Place London

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the resignation of Sara De Candido from RBC Place London BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated May 19, 2025 from S. De Candido with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (4.1) Kelly Paleczny, General Manager, London Transit Commission (LTC) 2024 Annual Report

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the London Transit Commission 2024 Annual Report BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (4.2) London Transit Commission Governance - Councillor S. Franke, Chair, London Transit

Motion made by S. Lewis

That London Transit Commission Governance BE DEFERRED pending the outcome of the external governance review and report back to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated June 24, 2025 from Councillor S. Franke, Chair, London Transit Commission with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (2.1) 2nd Report of the Governance Working Group

At 6:44 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen leaves the meeting.

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the Governance Working Group from its meeting held on June 26, 2025:

a)    the following actions be taken with respect to this matter:

i)    the MNP – London Housing Development Project – Lessons Learned Review report, BE RECEIVED; and, 

ii)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to report back to a future meeting of the Governance Working Group with a full list of the current tenant placement policies;

b)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to report back to a future meeting of the Governance Working Group with additional changes to the Amended Policy - Appointment of Deputy Mayor to provide clarity around the appointment process; and

c)   clauses 1.1, 2.1, 2.2 and 4.1 BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication from Councillor S. Trosow with respect to the Appointment of Deputy Mayor.

Motion Passed (10 to 1)

At 6:57 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen enters the meeting.

8.5.7   (4.3) Mobility Master Plan Notice of Completion

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, the followings actions be taken with respect to the Mobility Master Plan Report:

a)    the Mobility Master Plan Report BE APPROVED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to file a Notice of Completion and make the Report available for the statutory 30-day public review and comment period to assist in guiding implementation; and

Motion Passed (10 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, the followings actions be taken with respect to the Mobility Master Plan Report:

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a traffic study to evaluate the need to widen Pack Road to four lanes, if by the time Bradley Ave West is extended from Wonderland Road South to Bostwick Road, an update to the MMP is not yet underway;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a staff presentation with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Item 7, clause 4.3, reads as follows:

That, the followings actions be taken with respect to the Mobility Master Plan Report:

a)    the Mobility Master Plan Report BE APPROVED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to file a Notice of Completion and make the Report available for the statutory 30-day public review and comment period to assist in guiding implementation; and

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a traffic study to evaluate the need to widen Pack Road to four lanes, if by the time Bradley Ave West is extended from Wonderland Road South to Bostwick Road, an update to the MMP is not yet underway;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a staff presentation with respect to this matter.

8.5.8   (4.4) 2024 Climate Emergency Action Plan Progress Report

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

a)    the presentation and staff report, providing a summary of progress and policy implications and opportunities pertaining to the Climate Emergency Action Plan (CEAP) as well as the appendices, BE RECEIVED for information; 

b)    the report contained in Appendix ‘E’, titled Pathways to Prosperity: Climate Action and the Energy Transition in London (prepared by Sustainability Solutions Group) be forwarded to Deloitte LLP, the consultant hired to undertake the development of the City of London Economic Development Strategy; and

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on CEAP progress once per year as opposed to the current twice per year frequency now that a comprehensive public CEAP dashboard is available and can be periodically updated throughout the year as actions progress;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a presentation from staff and Y. Herbert, Consultant and presentation from M. Sye and M. Shannon, Enbridge Gas Ontario with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (10 to 2)

9.   Added Reports

At 7:00 PM, Councillor S. Stevenson leaves the meeting.

At 7:03 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen leaves the meeting.

At 7:05 PM, Councillors S. Stevenson and  P. Van Meerbergen enter the meeting

Motion made by H. McAlister

That the 12th Report of the Council, In Closed Session BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

That clauses 1 to 5 of the 12th Report of the Council, In Closed Session, read as follows:

Lease Extension Agreement – Land Lease 520 Wellington Street – Centennial House

1.    That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the lease of land located at 520 Wellington Street, (Centennial House), the Lease Extension Agreement (the “Lease Extension Agreement”) attached as Appendix “A”, between the City and Centennial House Limited (the “Tenant”), for land comprising a site area of approximately 15,950 square feet located at 520 Wellington Street (Centennial House) for an additional term of Twenty Years ending on December 31, 2052 BE APPROVED.  

License Agreement Renewal – 380 Wellington Street, City and WMJ (LCC) Holdings Inc. – Emergency Management and Security Services

2.   That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Emergency Management & Security Services, and on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the License Renewal Agreement for the non-exclusive right to use a portion of the roof (the “Site”) located at 380 Wellington Street, the Second License Renewal Agreement (the “License Agreement”), attached as Schedule “A”,  between the City and WMJ (LCC) Holdings Inc., (the “Licensor”), for the non-exclusive right to use a portion of the roof (the “Site”) located at 380 Wellington Street, for a term of Five (5) years (the “Second Renewal Term”), commencing on the 1st day of January 2026, and to be completed and fully ended on the 31st day of December 2030, BE APPROVED.

Property Acquisition – 533 Industrial Road

3.   That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Fleet & Facilities, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 533 Industrial Road, London, and legally described as Lots 19 and 20 and Block C and Part of Lots 15 and 16 in Registered Plan 18(C) as Part of Lot 14 in Registered Plan 848, in the City of London and County of Middlesex, being all of PIN 08127-0115 (the “Subject Property”) as shown on the location map attached as Appendix “B”, to support the City’s Operations Master Plan, the following actions be taken:

a)    the offer submitted by 533 Industrial Road Development Inc. (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of Twelve Million Two Hundred and Forty Thousand Dollars CDN ($12,240,000.00) BE ACCEPTED, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”; and

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

Offer to Purchase Industrial Lands – 1000690043 Ontario Inc. Huron Industrial Park

4.   That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the City-owned industrial land located in Huron Industrial Park C1, in the City of London, in the County of Middlesex, containing 0.185 acres, more or less subject to survey, and being composed of Part Lots 3 and 4 Concession 3, being part of Part 14 on Plan 33R-21778 and to be further described on a new Reference Plan and further shown outlined in red in Appendix “A”, the Class 2 Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Agreement”), attached as Appendix “B”, submitted by 1000690043 Ontario Inc. (the “Purchaser”) to purchase 0.185 acres of the subject property from the City, at a purchase price of $54,112.50 BE ACCEPTED, subject to the conditions and terms as set out in the Agreement.

Awarding of the 2025 Queen Elizabeth Scholarships

5.   That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, and in recognition of achieving the highest scholastic achievement in their graduating year, the following students BE AWARDED the 2025 Queen Elizabeth Scholarships, in the amounts shown:

Anren Guo A. B. Lucas Secondary School 99.50% $2,000

Daniel Brunt H. B. Beal Secondary School 99.50% $2,000

  1.  RBC Place Business Case: Doubletree Lease

That the following action be taken with respect to London Convention Centre Corporation (RBC Place London) By-law update:

a)    the by-law, being “A by-law to amend By-law No. A-6866-270, as amended, respecting the London Convention Centre Corporation” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 22, 2025, to insert a new section 3.1 as follows:

“LEASES

3.1.    With the prior written approval of Council, the Corporation may enter into a lease with an external party if the purpose for doing so is for the object of the corporation set out in subsection 2(2) of the City of London Act, 1992, being to “maintain, operate, manage, market and promote the convention centre for the benefit of the City and the people of the City of London.”;

it being noted that in closed session the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee requested the City Manager seek additional information from the Board Chair of RBC Place prior to the Council meeting.

That progress was made with respect to items 4.5, 4.6, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10. 4.11 and 4.13 as noted on the public agenda, (6.5/12/ICSC), (6.1/11/CPSC), (6.1/12/PEC), (6.2/12/PEC), (6.3/12/PEC), (6.1/9/SPPC), (6.3/9/SPPC).

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

None.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 277 and 281, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 277 and 281, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 277 and 281, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 278 and 279, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 278 and 279, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 278 and 279, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 286 and 302, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 286 and 302, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 286 and 302, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 287, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Second Reading of Bill No. 287, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 287, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 275 to Bill No. 301, and Added Bill No.’s 303 to 307, BE APPROVED, with the exception of Bill No’s 277 to 279, 281, 286, and 287.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Second Reading of Bill No. 275 to Bill No. 301, and Added Bill No.’s 303 to 307, BE APPROVED, with the exception of Bill No’s 277 to 279, 281, 286, and 287.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 275 to Bill No. 301, and Added Bill No.’s 303 to 307, BE APPROVED, with the exception of Bill No’s 277 to 279, 281, 286, and 287.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Franke

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 7:16 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 (6 hours, 32 minutes)

[19:41] Okay, please be seated. All right, thank you very much. Welcome to the 12th meeting of council. We acknowledge we are gathering today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee, Leni, Paywalk, and Adawandran peoples. We honor respect the history, languages, and cultures of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area, the two-row Wampum Belt Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Silver Covenant chain, Beaver Hunting Grounds of the Haudenosaunee, Nan Phan Treaty of 1701, the McKee Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1797, here on track treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabe, and the Dish With One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabe and Haudenosaunee.

[20:24] Three indigenous nations that are neighbors to the city of London or the Chippewaas or the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation or the Thames, and the Muncie Delaware Nation, who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs. As well, the city of London is committed to making every effort to provide 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. Okay, next, it’s my pleasure to let you know that we will have a large group today for the singing of the National Anthem.

[21:11] The youngest vocal ensemble has traveled from Hanover, Germany, a fellow UNESCO city of music, led by the director, Klaus Jurgen Edsold. Yeah, okay, great, Edsold. They’ve toured all corners of the globe. Their recent tour of Canada has been anchored in London, a fellow UNESCO city of music. Western University has hosted workshops and master classes and will have public performances tomorrow. Just moments ago, the choir performed at the Covent Garden Market. Tonight, they will perform at 100 Kellogg Lane in the courtyard next to the UNESCO Creative Cities Celeste Art installation at 7 p.m.

[21:49] Please rise and join me in welcoming one of the largest groups we’ll have for the National Anthem today. So go on out and if you need to adjust the microphone, we can do that too. (upbeat music) Okay, that was pretty awesome, actually, especially in the times, right?

[25:47] How amazing is it to have a group from Germany come and perform at the National Anthem here in Canada in such an impressive way? And now I’ve got to go to a yard sale ‘cause I got to think I gave away my CD player and so I’ll be hitting the yard sales those riffs stores this week. Also, we received some feedback from the clerk. I don’t know if someone in the gallery has their phone on, listening to the meeting is not muted. There’s a little bit of echo and feedback. So just per the procedure by-law, your devices should be on silent up there. Okay, perfect, we’ll go move on to disclosures of pecuniary interest.

[26:29] Go ahead, Councilor Raman. Thank you and through you. I’ll be declaring a conflict on the CAHPS item. We believe it’s 8.2, sorry, clause 12, 2.8, and the 11th report of CPSC because Fanshawe College is my employer. Yeah, that wasn’t quite the right clause.

[27:15] We just want to make sure we note the absolute correct clause. It is on the bridging supports housing stability services, right? Thank you, two point eight. 2.8 is correct, but it is clause eight of the 11th report of community protective services. Excellent, okay, anybody else? Perfect, so if the committee chair could just note that, that would be great. We are on to recognitions. Councilor Vameyer, we’re going to have a recognition today. Go ahead. First, let me say donka, parabergamista.

[27:56] I wanted to stand up today and just give a shout out and a heartfelt thanks to our own staff, led by Cheryl Smith and her chief fireworks person, Trevor Johnson. This past candidate today was like no other. This team managed to bring in K&H fireworks to set them off in Harris Park. I have never seen such an impressive display, which was downright emotional by most of the people who were attending.

[28:33] You could hear the chatter, the talk. After each explosion, there was just such joy. And I just want to thank Trevor and Cheryl and K-H fireworks because it was truly memorable. Thank you. Any other recognitions? Okay, seeing none, we have a review of conference matters because considered in public, we have none. We have council in close session of which there is a fair number of items, I believe it’s 13. So I look for a motion to move into a conference session.

[29:09] It’s Councillor Ferrera and Councillor Frank. We’ll open that for voting in the system. Councillor Vameyer, pardon? No, yes.

[29:48] No, thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, and we’ll be moving to committee room five. So for the public, we’ll return as soon as our confidential session is complete. Thank you, please be seated.

[1:10:18] Okay, that completes our closed session meeting. We can report out on some items later in the meeting. We’ll look to the confirmation signing of the previous minutes. We have the 11th meeting held on June 24th, 2025. I need to move on a seconder for that. Councillor Vameyer, seconded by Councillor Hayley or any comments or questions or changes to the minutes. All right, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[1:10:57] Okay, there’s a significant number of communications items, but they all have places to land within the relevant agendas. So there’s a consolidated motion moving all of those to the relevant spots. Councillor Hopkins is willing to move that, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. Any discussion on that? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[1:11:34] Okay, notice of which, motions of which you notice is given, we have none. Reports, we have a number of reports to deal with today. And we will start with the 12th report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee. And I will turn it over to the chair, Councillor Raman, to present that report. Thank you, and through you, I look forward the items from the 12th meeting of ICSC, Infrastructure and Corporate Services. I’m looking to put all items with the exception of eight, nine, and 10 on the floor.

[1:12:10] Okay, so that’s one through seven. Does anybody want anything from one through seven? Don’t waste separately, no, go ahead, Councillor. Thank you, yes, I’ll look to put items one through seven then on the floor. Okay, that’s moved by the chair. Any discussion on items one through seven? Seeing none, we’ll open up for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Go ahead, Councillor.

[1:12:43] Thank you, I’ll look to put item eight, which is 2.1, Biosolids Management Master Plan, notice of completion on the floor. All right, that’s on the floor. I believe Councillor Palose has circulated something. I’ll go to you first. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, to appreciate everyone’s time. It’s a motion to refer. It reads that the Biosolids Management Master Plan, notice of completion be referred to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee to allow civic administration to host an additional public information center for the Biosolids Management Master Plan, and it being noted that the preferred meeting location for items impacting this community in which this report would is out on Glamour Thrive and I do believe I have a seconder and Councillor Per beau.

[1:13:32] Okay, Councillor Per beau confirm. So that’s a referral, we’ll get that up on the screen. So colleagues, see that in a moment. And the referrals on the floor, you can go ahead and speak. Thank you, appreciate Council, so I’ll try and be concise. Some of you would have heard the questions residents raised and I raised for them at committee. There was also a communication from the community requesting the referral as they had some questions. I will note that and we’ll thank, as you noticed in the added, I did have an added communication trying to expedite my long-winded questions and answers.

[1:14:07] Thank you to Mr. Oda Kirk who did make himself a bell to come out to the community. Many other questions could be answered and addressed in a public information session. When the city hosted theirs, public comments didn’t come in. They might have had one in attendee, which very well I know could have been Councillor Per beau ‘cause he did go. When the community hosted their meeting, they had 50 people. It was a community hosted meeting by member of the community. So they ran the meeting where I believe that the city hosted this information center.

[1:14:39] A lot of their questions could be answered in an organized fashion. A lot of them focused around next steps, odors, mitigation, knowing that they had other odor emitting businesses in that area that have or have not gone so well and just really couldn’t understand the technology next steps where we go from here and what is the digesters, what’s gonna happen with it. So just really community focused is all that waste. That’s not going to green way. We’ll come out to this location in the city. So that’s a motion to refer just so they can go out and do more engagement with the city.

[1:15:13] I know we checked our boxes and did the proper process. Just they have some questions and not coming all the way into London. They would prefer that we went to them. Okay, this is on the referral. Any other speakers to the referral? Councillor Trossau and then Raman. Very briefly, I just went to through the chair. Thank the Councillor for bringing this forward. I think it’s appropriate. I think we’re not looking at any sort of statutory timelines and I think this would be a very simple thing for us to do. And I think the residents of that area are entitled to have this additional feedback and say.

[1:15:50] So thank you again for bringing this and I’ll be supporting the referral. Councillor Raman. Thank you and through you. And it’s not often that Councillor Trossau and I are completely on the same page but that was one of those moments. Yes, thank you. I really appreciate the fact that this is in front of us and I just want to confirm with staff. We did hear at the meeting that there was no issue with the time delay. So I just want to confirm that that’s case still. I don’t know who’s going to answer this but you’re making eye contact.

[1:16:28] So you’re up, go ahead. Thank you through your worship. No, there is not an issue with the time delay noting that putting this report forward now does not close the opportunity for public engagement is merely actually opening the official 30 day plan that is part of the process. So there is still much more time for comment and consultation regardless of what we do here today. Thank you and just to follow up, I do think it would be helpful to refer the matter so that those folks that are interested in getting their questions answers can get those answers.

[1:17:03] So then they can therefore provide their feedback in a way that’s relative to the process. Thank you. All right, any others on the referral? Okay, seeing none, then we’re going to open the referral for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. That’s right. Thank you, I’ll look to put item nine, 2.8, the expropriation of lands phase two, Wellington Gateway Project, civil works related to bill number 287 on the floor.

[1:17:45] Okay, that’s on the floor. I will look for any comments. Seeing none, then we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to two. Go ahead. Thank you. I’ll look to put item 10, 4.1, the London Emergency Services Campus on the floor. I’d like to thank the police chief and the fire chief for attending the ICSC committee as well as the mayor and others for being there to speak to this item and I’d like to put that on the floor right now.

[1:18:29] Okay, perfect, that’s on the floor. And I’ll look for any speakers to this one. Councilor Trossaab, go ahead. Thank you and to the mayor, to the chair. First of all, I want to clarify that my objection to this, and the reason why I’m standing now to talk about this again, as I did at the committee, is not because I’m trying to stop or delay this facility. I know we’ve approved that, I know it’s in the budget, I know that’s done.

[1:19:07] And I know it’s gonna be very difficult to decide where to put this. But my objection to this, and I have asked for the documentation, my objection to this is the finding that we have to make is really based on the information that’s in the feasibility study. And we have not been provided with a copy of the feasibility study. I don’t see how this council, other than the perhaps three of us, who also sit on the police services committee, who have been presumably given a copy of this report.

[1:19:45] I don’t see how the rest of us can responsibly vote on this. And I think we really need to see that report, because in order to take out this land, in order to remove this prime farmland from its current use, there are certain legal requirements, not just as a matter of city law, but as a matter of the provincial policy statement. And again, since there is no zoning by-law involved here, any limitations that exist in the planning regime, regarding the inability of objectors to be able to seek relief is not relevant here.

[1:20:33] This is not a zoning application that’s going to go to a tribunal. This is a by-law that we’re going to pass, which would be subject to attack as an improperly adopted by-law. And I think it’s important for us to recognize that. I’m not going to ask the solicitor for advice as to whether that true or not, I think that’s sort of self-evident. So again, in all due respect to the folks that have been working on this very diligently, I wanna see that report, and I wanna see it come back to this council, best for it, I’ve spoken to a number of people about it, I cannot in good conscious support this without seeing the feasibility study.

[1:21:19] And I guess I do have, yeah, I guess I’ll just leave it at that. I need to see the feasibility study, thank you. Yes, so this question came up. I actually want Ms. Barbara to clarify an item that’s in the report just so that we’re all clear on what the feasibility study actually relates to. Go ahead. Thank you, through your worship. On page 145 of the actual committee agenda, under section 2.3.1, what the council is referring to is actually work that was done by staff.

[1:21:51] That work was to the filtering and identification of the parcels of land was done by civic administration. The feasibility study was commissioned early on in 2022, in order to inform the work that needed to be put forward to inform the business case that was adopted as part of the multi-year budget. So when you refer back to business case P57, there is a great deal of information about the feasibility study that was identified in that business case that was based on the financials of how that business case would move forward to support the development of moving to a emergency services campus as it was initially envisioned.

[1:22:34] So hopefully that clarifies a little bit of the information that was identified in the report. I’m gonna turn the chair over to the deputy mayor, put myself on the speaker’s list for this. I’ll take the chair and recognize Mayor Morgan. Yes, thank you. I wanna make a couple of comments on this. First to what the deputy city manager just said. The work that staff did to identify the location, which is the matter before us, was work that staff did. The work on the feasibility study was the work, as was described, to inform the business case of which the business case had details, which is council approved.

[1:23:12] I can tell you that the feasibility study contains components about the operational capacity and vulnerabilities of the London Police Services, which is why the business case was forwarded on. So that information is not going to be shared under the Police Services Act. They are not going to share operational details of the capacity of different segments of the police service. But that is only one component of what this is now. So we can get really hung up on one small piece on a business case that we’ve already approved as a council, or we can talk about the location and how this has evolved to include a huge opportunity for the city, not just the city, but the region of Southwestern Ontario.

[1:24:00] The co-location at this site of the fire and police and emergency services training capacity, will serve the region. Provincial hazmat will serve the industrial areas not just here, but the power co-facility and others in the region. It’s one of the few potential hazmat facilities outside the GTA EOC. We know our EOC is always asking for or being asked for training opportunities from other municipalities in Southwestern Ontario, where they see what we’ve done from an operational perspective.

[1:24:36] To have that new improved facility, ‘cause we’ve outgrown ours there, is a huge opportunity for all the communities who require emergency management training to come and co-locate their training in this facility as a regional facility. And of course, we’ve talked about fire many times, the closing of the fire college, the fact that we have airports in this province who go to New York, in the United States, at a time when we’re talking about doing things in Canada, would have the capacity at a facility like this to actually train in this country and this province, huge opportunity for all of Ontario. So there are really great components here, let alone the small volunteer fire departments who could train at a professional facility in Southwestern Ontario that has burn tower and the proper facilities to do so.

[1:25:20] Possible partnerships with Department of National Defence on the scenario training, the driving course when it’s built out and the other pieces. So we have to think, I think, bigger than just our city on this, this is an opportunity for us to continue to serve as a leader in Southwestern Ontario to not only provide the necessary facilities for the organizations that we’re responsible for, but also be a leader in Southwestern Ontario and providing a regional facility that truly could serve all of the communities and the 2.8 million people across Southwestern Ontario. And that is why, that is why there is interest from the provincial and the federal governments in becoming a financial partner on this, which I can tell you given the amount of debt that we could offload if we had financial partnerships on this, this is a very good opportunity for the city, not just from an operational and training perspective, not just from the way that we do business, but also from a financial perspective for the city to relieve some of the pressure that we will have on the debt side of things in the future by having a facility that can be a true partnership with the provincial and federal governments and serve all of Southwestern Ontario.

[1:26:25] So I think that we need to move forward with this location. Because of that regional perspective, this is a great location because it is near those 400 highways and it serves as those industrial areas as well. So I hope you support it today. I appreciate the conversation at committee and I’ll look forward to the vote. Thank you Mayor Morgan. I will return the chair to you. I have no one else on the speakers list, although I see Councillor Ploza was about to raise her hand. Councillor McAllister.

[1:26:59] Sorry, I always forget to look, there’s one more seat here, sorry Councillor. So we’ve got Councillor McAllister and I would like to be on the speakers list briefly as well, but we’ll go to Councillor McAllister. So let me just confirm you’re handing me a list with McAllister, Ploza and yourself. Okay, great. Thank you and through the Mayor. You know, I recognize the difficulty of choosing a location for this. I know we’ve had a lot of conversations at committee and council. And to kind of some of the points the Mayor made, I’ve also had conversations.

[1:27:33] We’ve had a number of delegations with the solicitor general in terms of the cost sharing on the police side. I know there’s the opportunity with a fire as well, with Ontario Fire Marshal has been involved in those conversations. And so for me, I really stress the importance of the cost sharing and even the cost recovery aspect of this facility. It’s a large ticket item understanding the realities that emergency services are facing. But to the Mayor’s point, I really think we have to keep pushing on the front of partnering with our, you know, whether it’s rural, regional partners and then on the cost recovery side.

[1:28:10] You know, if we’re renting these facilities out, we really do need to capitalize on those opportunities. And so my words, I guess, going from here, maybe to go back to the police board, but any of the money that can be recovered in terms of cost, ‘cause it is so large that that’s money that comes back to the city coffers, recognizing obviously the police still have things they need to do, but this is money that absolutely needs to come back to the city. If there’s any opportunity to partner, get this money back, we need to do that. Because yes, London is footing the bill for this, but as we have heard from a number of the regional partners, they have a need for it, but we can’t be footing the bill for the entire region.

[1:28:53] That’s something the province absolutely has to get on board with, ‘cause they have recognized the realities, especially with the Ontario Fire College closing. There is a need in the community. London is stepping forward and we absolutely need to be compensated for our efforts. Thank you. Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. For those who joined committee, I would say laborists in my questions there and very well still might be today. So if Councillor Roman needs to sit, that’s okay with it.

[1:29:28] A question for you or through you to staff. As this one, I would say we’ve had nothing quite like this. It’s an exciting opportunity. It will help fuel the growth of emergency services, not only in London, but in the region. Some of my key concerns were that this is outside the urban growth boundary. These residents were just told by staff through our urban growth boundary review that nothing is coming that way. You’re not gonna see development. And this is going there. Some community concerns focused around, we just discussed the biosolids that it just seems to be whenever there’s something controversial or smelly that we’ll just put it there.

[1:30:11] Other concerns focused around its prime agricultural land. Do we look at other locations which we did? Those staff highlighted the locations outside the city of London, even when we were on our board door staff, that might have already been brownfield developments and looking for regeneration. We’re not considered. A question through you to staff. Ms. Barbone had just spoke to the feasibility study having impacted the budget and the business case. What is it? I’m just looking for the words ‘cause I thought part of the feasibility study contained the LPS stuff that would be confidential that we can’t have, which is the reason we can’t have the report.

[1:30:46] So I’m just looking if it was all mashed up to pin to one report. If it’s two separate reports and I’m just not understanding what confidential sections would have referred to LPS operations, I’m just looking for that clarification. I know you asked Ms. Barbone, but Ms. Smith is also nodding. So I’ll go to Ms. Smith first. And if you have to hand it over, go ahead. Thank you and through your worship. So as part of the consultant, the feasibility study, they laid out and used their expertise and looked at other experts, looked at what other training facilities and similar look like.

[1:31:23] So as part of this, they had to lay out the very detailed design in order to help determine what the projected costs were. So in conversation with the London Police Board Chair, it contains a lot of detailed operations specific to the London Police that could be detrimental if shared to the public. So it therefore, it remains confidential. So it was one report, approximately 200 pages, a lot of options and designs as we looked at what would it look like phased in, one phase, two phase, three phase, what would be required?

[1:32:01] So a lot of it was block designs. They engaged with fire, with police. I can speak on behalf of fire, fire safety experts, experts that have done and built facilities before, police experts in order to help draw potentially what the design so they could cost it out would look like as part of the budget. Go ahead, Councilor. Thank you. I’ll come back to that ‘cause I might have a motion. Well, I have one draft, I will see if it’s relevant or we’ll get us to where I’m trying to get to. I had sent staff a few questions beforehand, so just looking to turn to those now.

[1:32:40] As we heard at committee that, under a certain provincial legislation that this isn’t gonna require the zoning change, like we’d normally see through PAC, which would trigger a PPM. So just looking forward to what is next steps, if there’s no public participation meeting, where do we go from here? And ideally in person engagement, just not get involved London, which is great, but it’s not always people’s preferred method to engage. Go ahead. Thank you, and through you, Richard, you’re correct. The next step is we will publicize on getting involved.

[1:33:13] It will outline a lot of this information. It’ll articulate the benefits of this facility. It’ll talk about the site selection process. It will provide opportunities for input and feedback. And as we start to progress, as Ms. Barbone stated, this feasibility study was started in 2022 and completed in 2023. Since then, as the mayor articulated, we’ve had a number of conversations, both regionally and provincially and internally with Mr. Latissure and the possibilities of building a state of the art emergency operation center there.

[1:33:49] So our next steps are really to update the design, look at what we’re planning to do with block patterns as we phase in this over, hopefully two phases. So as part of that, we are committed to keeping everybody updated through getting involved. And we are also committed to having a community engagement session in the near future with the surrounding neighborhood. And anyone else who is interested? Councillor Ploza. Thank you, a follow-up before she gets too far. Would that community engagement include something like that public information center?

[1:34:27] Just looking for that format. Go ahead. Thank you. I don’t have the details yet, but 100% it would be part of sharing information, what it looked like, answering questions, and receiving feedback from the community and from the surrounding neighborhoods. Thank you. As noted in the last biosolids discussion, the community, since it’s going out there, would prefer a location closer to them to make it easier for them to be engaged in their community. They had also highlighted that sometimes when we do the notification boundary, that especially out there, so much of it is actually owned by the city that the city notifies the city and not really any residents.

[1:35:08] So I’ve already flagged that for staff and I’ll have a motion coming through a different committee as advised by the clerks of how best to policy wise. I changed that overall, so that’s not a today plan. That’s next time. Does the conservation authority need to sign off on this anyway, realizing the province has allowed us to do this? And then, if Ms. McNealy’s standing up anyways, is there a site plan or how does that get handled or does it come back to council? Go ahead. Thank you for your worship.

[1:35:42] Yes, either section 28 permit or a letter of clearance from the Kettle Creek Conservation Authorities if required, and for site plan, we’d be going through a similar process as we do for any site plan, looking at site functionality, access, seagress, making sure that the safe movement in tune of the site as well as mitigation measures sign off from any ecological, all those elements. And through your worship, yes.

[1:36:15] The application process is through administered by staff. Go ahead. And will that administered through staff, but does it come back publicly through council and committee, or is it just taking care of administrative behind the scenes? Thank you through your worship. Yes, it’s all with staff, done administratively, no approval through council. Go ahead. Thank you. Like I said, a very different process. There’s no PPM staff handle stuff behind the scenes. And then when we get notified or our decision-making points, knowing that where those will or will not come, I would like to thank the LPS Chair, Ryan Goss and she thronged yesterday for taking time to discuss with me.

[1:36:59] Some other residents concerned were, as it relates to the report, that if we’re doing, we’re well, we’re not doing it, it’d be awesome if we did, but as they’re doing situational training and they’re out in the field, residents were asking, like, if they’re burning special things, they’re doing special operations. Like, how are they gonna be notified if, especially if it’s at night? Realizing there’s also gonna be an outdoor fine range. Some questions were asked about what kind of ammunition are they using, how far, especially in that area, will the shots be heard in is there residential homes within that catchment area? Or even people driving by in the countryside who aren’t used to hearing or knowing that the police centers there hearing live, like ammunition being fired?

[1:37:38] That was some other concerns. Their concerns also pertain to if there’s noise, environmental smells and other concerns, when it comes time and we move through the process, who do they complain to? Is it a by-law issue? 30 seconds, Councillor. Then I’m asking for an extension, two minutes. Councillor blows is moving a two minute extension for herself, seconded by Councillor Hillier. Any discussion? We just need a second to put that in the system. Okay, it’s gonna be open now.

[1:38:43] Closing the vote, motion carries, 15 to zero. All right, keep going. Thank you, I put my own timer too. They’re just even looking at if there’s other concerns, is this a Ministry of Environment concerned? That’s who they normally report to. If it’s city by-law or if they have concerns about the operations, do they report their police concerns to the police who’s just looking at that area as concerns move forward? They’ve raised concerns that they have in their belief dimensioning road quality out there, that some of the actual roads have already been reduced in speeds and looking to see, as we move through this process, if those heavier weight vehicles or more traffic out there will reduce it further if the city plans any enhancements to those areas, as there’s no paved shoulders, no sidewalks, and they still walk their kids.

[1:39:31] Grand babies go for walks that they’re still out there and some of these vehicles can be quite large or moving at higher speeds. They also asked for if the decision makers haven’t been out there in the area to experience it, if they’re aware of the odor spells and concerns that come out there, if they’re trying to do operations or welcoming regional partners, that it can be quite unpleasant at times. My draft motion, I’ll look to staff to see if we think it’s gonna get to what we’re trying to get to for those who still have concerns, including some colleagues at committee.

[1:40:07] The London Police Services be requested to submit to a future committee, a public executive summary, regarding the London Emergency Campus, based off of the feasibility study, noting confidential or proprietary information that can impact operations or safety as not what’s being requested. Still have some concerns from that 200 page report that we don’t have access to, that the chain of custody of information is not ours, that we’re just looking to understand what’s needed, what’s gonna be going on. So that’s my main question to staff, if that’s what I’m looking for, is that gonna get us there, is everything else in that report, besides what we have in front of us confidential, we’re not gonna get it.

[1:40:49] Sorry, and I had sent a draft to the clerks in email. Yeah, I’m just gonna pause your time for some. I have a question for you, Councillor.

[1:43:30] You’re asking for the decision, so the decision will be made today on the location, and this is a separate piece where you want to request some information, okay? Do you want, because I don’t think that the London Police Services can provide an executive summary for the London Emergency Services campus, because it involves multiple other partners, so I miss Smith, go ahead. Thank you, sorry, and through your worship, I’m wondering if it would be beneficial to say civic administration and the London Police, because what we can bring back an executive summary, we really need to update the feasibility study, so building on what’s already there, as you can imagine in the last 18 months, a lot has changed and grown as we’ve discussed earlier in this meeting with this site, so I’m wondering, we would be happy to come back to a future committee meeting with and date to share what we’re doing, our plan to how we’re gonna engage with the community, and an executive summary, or a public executive summary, some of what’s in the feasibility study that was done back in January of 2023, but probably more importantly, if what’s going to be happening, and the updated version of that feasibility study, as we will be bringing back the consultant to help work us out to design block, and what does the emergency service campus look like today as compared to almost two years ago?

[1:45:06] So if I can ask you, Councilor, does that sound good? ‘Cause I can, we can just— Yeah, I’m happy to make that civic admin and LPS. We’ll broaden it a little bit and make sure that it’s, ‘cause what I think is just, so I know we’re making a decision on the location today, but I do see value from a council efficiency perspective, given that this is a much, there’s other partners at play, and we’ve talked about kind of the updates. I think that there’s value in council getting that, more comprehensive update on, here’s what it’ll do for fire, here’s what it’ll do for EOC, here’s why it’s good for police, and so I’m trying to save you the committee cycle by letting it happen and attach this, as long as it’s not contingent upon the location, otherwise I’d have to say that set of order, given we’re deciding on the location today.

[1:45:51] So if you’re good with that, I think that probably makes a lot of sense. I’m fine with that, recognizing that London Fire is civic, and I did discuss this with the chief yesterday, so he understood my intention as well for relationship building. Okay, so does this sound okay? That civic administration be directed to submit to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Service Committee, a public executive summary regarding the London Emergency Services Campus, and they, I guess you want the stuff about LPS, ‘cause we can direct our staff, do you need to say?

[1:46:44] Mr. Mayor, can we just put the civic administration and the London Police Services be requested to jointly submit? ‘Cause I kind of want to direct our staff, but we can’t direct the London Police, so what if we said civic administration be directed in consultation with the London Police Service to submit a report to the next Infrastructure and Corporate Service Committee executive summary regarding the London Emergency Services Campus? I would just put to a future meeting, realizing that police need to be consulted and potentially— - Oh, future meeting, I just read it wrong. - Yep.

[1:47:40] So I’m gonna read this and I’ll ask for a seconder, that the motion be amended to add a new part that reads as the follows, that civic administration be directed in consultation with the London Police Service to submit it to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee and executive summary regarding the Emergency Services Campus, okay, and seconded by Councillor Hillier. Okay, that’s now on the floor if you want to— Sorry, can’t just go on the screen, it’s not in the e-scribe yet when I keep hitting refresh. She’s putting it up right now, should refresh now for you. So do you have anything to add to speak to the amendment now that the amendment’s on the floor?

[1:48:44] Okay, anybody want to speak to the amendment? Go ahead, Councillor Roman. Thank you and through you, I just want to clarify. My understanding was from the discussion at committee and from this meeting here today, is that what my colleagues were looking for was actually related to the feasibility study and I just think without the mention of the feasibility study, this is actually potentially something different. It seems like we’re just getting an update now, but it looked like before we were being able to really get more insight into the evaluation of the criteria that we’re used to be able to make this decision as to why we arrived at the decision.

[1:49:21] So I’m just wanting to know, update’s great, but I think if the intent was to get information that we didn’t have, then I think that that’s missing from this motion. I was just going by what Ms. Smith said that she was going to endeavor to do and she described the operationalization of it. There will obviously be components of that that can’t be included, but she was going to say she was going to include that stuff. So it wouldn’t just be that component though, there would be a fire and EOC who would add some stuff as well. So if nobody is satisfied with that, we can adjust it, but I heard Ms. Smith be very clear about that.

[1:49:56] If you want to just clarify again and then we’ll see if we need to make an amendment. Thank you and through your worship. Yes, we are taking the current feasibility study that the consultant helped us to develop what that block plan and design is and around the criteria and all the information included in that, we need to build on it because what I would like to come back and share publicly, what it’s more realistically going to look like because over the last 18 months, so I understand you want to say some of the parameters that were included in the initial feasibility study done by the consultant still stands, but also sharing big portion of that was the design and what it looks like at a high level.

[1:50:41] I’d like to share that revised and what it looks like with you and with the public. So we will take the basis of what’s already there and add to it and from that we will create an executive summary of that document for you to share with you in the public. Councillor Roman. Thank you, I appreciate the clarification. Although I will appreciate an update at a future meeting and I think this motion is valid and helpful for that reason. My concern is I don’t think it actually fully addresses some of the concerns from colleagues that we’re looking to bring this forward.

[1:51:16] I also wanted to just mention that I think it would be helpful in the update if we hear exactly how much of the parcel will be used and how that parcel will be used because I know that there was concerns from the folks that came out and spoke to us from OFA around whether or not any of the rest of the parcel will be farmable or not. So any information on that I think will be helpful. I’m not sure if that’s for future date but I would love to see that in a report, thank you. Great and I saw Ms. Smith nod that that’s certainly possible.

[1:51:51] I think there was some detail provided about the amount of the parcel that would be used initially and how much would still be farmland. Okay, other questions on the amendment? I don’t have anyone else on the amendment. Okay, so we’re gonna open that for voting. Wasn’t the vote motion carries 15 to zero?

[1:52:29] Asked. Do you need to move it for the main motion as amended? I do, yes. I can move it. Okay, you want to second it? Okay, moved and seconded, perfect. Any discussion on the main motion as amended? Councilor Trossa. No, I already spoke so I just wanna make sure that I’m not out of order in the motion. Yes, well, that’s something that right now, the way we’ve been doing it is if you’ve spoken, if it’s a new motion as amended, I think for efficiency, we can look at that in the future, but I’m gonna be consistent with how we’ve done it in the past.

[1:53:05] So it’s an as amended motion so you can speak. Okay, in which case through the mayor, I still will, I really appreciate the amendment. I think the amendment is going to be very helpful. But again, at this point, as this main motion, as amended stands right now, it does not have the information in it that I would need to support this. So I will be voting no, but I just wanna say in voting no, I do appreciate the amendment. And I understand from the director of planning that this is still going to need a permit from a conservation authority.

[1:53:42] And I believe that that’s gonna happen in September, just for everybody’s information. Yeah, and I’m wondering if it’s okay to ask the director, what is the nature of the permit that is needed from the conservation authority? Okay, that’s relevant to site, so I can go to that. Go ahead. - Thank you through your worship. It would be a section 28 permit. And could you just sort of clarify for everybody what that entails in terms of the findings that the conservation authority would need to make?

[1:54:26] Go ahead. Thank you through your worship. It would be addressing any of the regulatory matters, flooding, mitigative measures if needed. Okay, well with that, I’m still going to vote no on this. I guess I really appreciate the progress that’s being made. And I hope the people who are supporting this as is, recognize that many, if not all, of the considerations that you raised in terms of the benefits of this, I’m not disputing.

[1:55:04] All I’m disputing is, I wanna see those 15 alternative sites and satisfy myself that none of them are appropriate. With that, thank you very much for your indulgence. Thank you, anybody else on the as amended motion? Go ahead, Councillor Ferri. Thanks, Mayor. Through you, I really appreciate all the comments and questions that Council has asked at this Council chambers. Looking at Council, and I’m gonna get to the motion as amended in a second, but kind of just looking at conversations and how we did work here two years ago and comparing it today, I gotta say, we’re definitely easing into that group, working with each other and doing work on the floor in front of everybody in the public space.

[1:55:49] As Councillor Palose has asked about the feasibility study and putting that motion forward, that is, and I understand the concerns with releasing any type of feasibility studies with any confidential items. So the executive summary, if that’s what we’ll do, then I would appreciate that and that’s why I supported that. And as you know, I’ve been saying at the multi-year budget, when we were discussing this, it was really the training facility and the cost therein that I really had my issues with. But hearing what the Mayor had to say and the potential of cost recovery and getting monies from other levels of government for this, that definitely puts my concerns down.

[1:56:26] Like I’ve been speaking to colleagues, I’ve been speaking to friends, I have a lot of people that I know that are police and they tell me that this training facility amongst the entire package that we approved is something that is helping with morale, is something that is helping them police look forward to the future of being able to be fully trained and being fully equipped and updated on doing their job. So those two pieces are the real thing that are gonna get me to support this at this time. I know we’re gonna have a section 28 permit approval coming eventually at some point. So with that, I do await on the executive summary and that will inform my vote at that time.

[1:57:05] But at this time, knowing that we’re gonna get that executive summary for the feasibility study and we’re gonna get all the questions that were asked here at council, which I believe, staff will do that. And knowing that we’re gonna get some money back from the federal government, that will release some budget pressure for us in the next year and the years to come, especially when it comes to capital stuff. So you’re gonna get my vote on this one. And that’s what I had to say, that’s my piece. I look forward to seeing that time at the permit time. And yeah, I really like to see the work that we did here in front of everybody.

[1:57:38] So thank you. And I said, going to get money from the federal government, I still have to do that. So location is important. I still got lobbying to do, eventually and federally, there are positive ongoing discussions. So I haven’t got any money yet. So just, I didn’t want you to create a false expectation. Sorry, Mayor, hopefully the mayor will acquire that or get that money for us. So we’ll have that conversation, I guess. All right, well, everybody else can help too. Okay, other speakers to the as amended motion. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis.

[1:58:15] Thank you, Your Worship. So I supported the amendment, support the main motion. I will express, as I always express, it would have been great if this had been circulated in advance so that we could have considered it, rather than a word smithing on the floor. But nonetheless, I appreciate the intent of what the Council was trying to accomplish. So I supported it through you, perhaps actually at you as a question, as a member of the police services board.

[1:58:48] And I think this is important just for the public understanding. Your Worship, you spoke about the regional representatives, we’ve been very clear today that Fire EMS, the EOC are involved as well. There continues to be a misperception out there, among some members of the public, that this training center is a police college, that it somehow is creating additional spaces for training cadets, like the Elmer Police College does. So through you, can you confirm that this is, in fact, for the ongoing training of staff who are already hired, this is not a training facility for new cadets?

[1:59:25] I had to go, oh, you’re in a stake in your head? I know it was asked of me. All right, so I’m not sitting as a member of the police services board here, and I’m also not gonna answer this as a member of the police services board, but I will tell you from the knowledge that I have, and of the business case and the rationale associated with it, Council made an investment in police services. There is inadequate facilities within that service to meet the needs of the service today, and in the future.

[2:00:01] That was all clear in the business case. I think Ms. Smith and Mr. Lasseter can comment about the adequacy of services on fire and emergency operations side, but I would only go back to the business case to say it was made very clear that there needs to be some additional space that created. There also, I think the chief was clear that if you wanna train to adequate professional standards, this is a necessary facility without commenting on operations at all.

[2:00:35] So that’s the best I can do with this hat here. So there you go. Fair enough. So I will say then just myself, it is my understanding, and I’ve had discussions with the chief as well. This is not a police college. This is a training center for our existing police officers, our existing firefighters, our existing emergency operations folks, and it is needed. Whether it is new technology training, whether it is new procedures in terms of workplace safety operations, and whether it’s fire or police, or our own EOC teams.

[2:01:17] Policies and procedures change over time. There is a constant continuous learning curve for our emergency services, and so I think this is vitally necessary. But I also think it speaks to the fact that London is, and I say this with all due respect to our neighboring communities, but we really are the capital of Southwestern Ontario in terms of standing alone as the largest single tier municipality between Toronto and Windsor.

[2:01:51] And there are numerous emergency services throughout that region that need training, and it is extremely expensive. Whether it’s firefighters, whether it’s police officers, to start putting people on planes and flying them to other jurisdictions in Canada, in the US, or in other places around the globe. It is much more efficient to have a training center here at home where we can train those folks. When it comes to the feasibility study, I will say I trust our staff have done their evaluations of the 15 potential sites, and that they’re bringing forward their best recommendation to us.

[2:02:34] That is their job, and I trust that they have done it adequately within the parcels of land that we have available to us. And whether we saw the other 15 parcels by address or not, I don’t think that we have the ability as a council to actually assess whether the other locations might be better when, in fact, there are operational matters to which we’re not privy. So I’m very supportive of this. I am happy to extend an offer, and I think Councillor Ferra already volunteered himself, I’ve volunteered myself too, that if we can assist in the lobbying efforts with the provincial and federal government, happy to do that, because this is not just a benefit to London.

[2:03:22] This is a benefit to all of Southwestern Ontario. This is a benefit to Ontario as a whole, as a province. And if you start talking about the Department of National Defence and things like that, it’s a benefit to the nation. So I do think that senior levels of government should be assisting in the cost here, but I am happy to support it moving forward and happy to work with you on the lobbying efforts to get them to partner with us on the costs. Thank you, and other speakers to the as amended motion. Seeing none, we’ll open that for a vote.

[2:04:02] Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to one. It’s a ramen. Thank you, that concludes my report. All right, a great job. We’re on to Community Protective Services Committee, and we’ll go over to Councillor Ferra to present that report. Thanks, Mayor. I’m pleased to present the 11th report of the Community Protective Services Committee. I got a few pull requests. I received pull requests for item four, item seven, item eight, item 11, item 12, and item 14.

[2:04:43] So if there’s any other pull requests that I missed. Councillor Stevenson. What are you gonna pass? Microphone Councillor Ferra, thanks. I’d like to pull 15, please. Okay, so Councillor, I think you said, just check your list, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15. Was that, that had not been pulled?

[2:05:16] That’s the pull list. I have, item three. Oh, wait, I don’t even say that one. Oh, you, okay, so three. Seven, eight, 11. So not four, just three. Not four, not four. So three, seven, eight, 11, 12, 15, 15. Okay, all right. Anybody else want anything else? Both. Okay, so I believe you’re gonna craft a motion then that is one, two, four, five, six, nine, 10, and 13. Yes, I will put, I’ll put those on the floor.

[2:05:55] I’ll move those items that you listed on the floor. All right, those are on the floor. Any discussion on those? We just gotta put that into the system here. All right, we’re gonna open that for voting.

[2:07:14] A lot of pause for that, yes? Yeah, oh, I just wanted to add a few things to say. Oh, sure, go ahead on any of those items. Yeah, so on 2.9 for the dashboard plan, I just wanted to confirm that there’ll still be a June snapshot for 2025. Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you on the City of London website, we can endeavor to do a June snapshot. We have started to reallocate our resources and efforts towards this initiative, but we can absolutely do an update for June.

[2:07:49] Okay, that’s great, thank you. And then for 2.10 with the contracts, there was also, because we passed an amendment saying that we would get these executed contracts, there was also an amendment for the April 7th community and protective services committee, and so approved at council on April 22nd for the ETF funds at 602 Queens. So I just wanted to confirm that that contract will be coming forward. Yep, we’ll take your time when you’re ready.

[2:08:40] Thank you, Your Worship. The, sorry, one second, just getting some intel here. No problem, accurate is better than fast, always. Your Worship, Ms. Wilcox is on the Zoom. I’m gonna maybe defer this to her. Thank you. - Okay, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you, yes, there is a direction to bring this one back and it will be coming separately in September.

[2:09:28] This one is a contract through the life stabilization team. Okay, that’s super, thank you. I did notice that the London Care is highly supportive housing budget that we were looking for in June is all here, so that’s good to see. And I did just wanna talk a little bit about or ask staff to just clarify, because there’s been a lot of talk about the contracts and me requesting the contracts and then being asked to file freedom of information and doing that, and then all of them have been redacted, some completely for the budgets, other partially.

[2:10:12] And then these ones came unredacted, which was great, but I would just like through you to staff to just explain to council and the public for these social service contracts that are untendered. What are we allowed to see in terms, and what can the public see in terms of these contracts? So I’m just curious, I would like to know, and I think the public would like to know why these ones are unredacted, but the ones filed through freedom of information were redacted, and I have asked through emails, but I would just like it shared publicly.

[2:10:51] Yes, so let me, ‘cause this involves multiple staff, let me take a go at it ‘cause I’ve been on council 10 years, so I should be able to answer this, and then I’m gonna have our staff confirmed. Under various acts, including the Municipal Act, council is the authoritative body, council as a whole. The mayor, yes, through recent legislation, does have some standing, but for the most part, individual members of council have, from a freedom of information policy perspective, essentially operate like members of the public in the way that staff by legislation have to treat the request coming in.

[2:11:28] So if council makes a request as a body, it can provide direction, and then items can come forward, and they either come forward publicly or in camera, depending on the nature of the pieces, and that body has certain authority under acts. If a member of council wants to just see the information themselves and not have all of council see, it they basically operate, for the most part, as a member of the public requesting information under freedom of information, because our staff are required to follow the legislation, whether it’s the information and privacy officer, or the solicitor’s office, to do so. So there is a difference between an individual member of council asking for information, then council as a whole, passing a majority resolution asking for information, which would have differences.

[2:12:14] And I just want our solicitor’s staff and anybody, maybe from clerks who might oversee information privacy, just to confirm that I’ve got that right. That’s my understanding from my time on council, because I’ve had to do the same. If I wanted to do something individually, I’d go through one process, if I wanted to do something as a councilor, I could go through bringing a motion through council, so go ahead and respond. Thank you and through your worship. I think that’s a fair summary of the situation. All right, the clerks say that’s good enough, but the solicitor’s confirmed it, so I’ll go back to you, Councillor Stevenson.

[2:12:51] Thank you, I appreciate that, because it’s good for the public to know that we do act as a body. I guess my question, and slight confusion on this, is if something has to be redacted based on freedom of information protection, then like are we overriding that in terms of asking for the contracts, hence the stuff’s redacted? Like it just does, for me, if it has to be covered for privacy protection, then we wouldn’t, we’re not overriding that in asking for these contracts, correct?

[2:13:28] Like if we file it through a freedom of information, it should be all information that is allowed to be shared publicly, I would have thought, and I’m just seeing a lot of inconsistency. I think I would like the solicitor to comment on, council has a mechanism to receive things in camera, whereas individual Councillors obviously do not, they operate as a member of the public, who when they get freedom of information request, can do whatever they want with it, whereas council, if it receives confidential information, is bound by council confidentially under the legislation to do so. I think the difference is an organization has the ability to voluntarily disclose some things or not, and regardless of how it’s requested, so could you, maybe the solicitor can comment on that aspect of it for clarity, for the members of council and the public as well?

[2:14:16] Yes, thank you and through you. So all institutions, not all institutions, municipal institutions have to comply with MFIPA when they are releasing information, because there is certain information that may not be disclosed. So as the mayor said, when it is council as a whole, there are confidential mechanisms that can sometimes come into play, where council can see things in confidential session, whereas when it is a simple MFIPA request, we do have to comply with the act and make sure that we’re redacting things that are confidential, third party information, that sort of thing.

[2:14:59] There are times as well when something might be rejected in terms of MFIPA, and then become a public document because the organization or individual that is the owner of that information consents to it being made public. Go ahead, councilor. Thank you, and that was the answer that I find really interesting, right, is that they own the information rather than the city owning the information in that it seems as though organizations have said yes to information being disclosed on the public agenda, but they have said no to it when a councilor, a member of the public, has asked for the same information.

[2:15:48] So I guess that’s just, I think, interesting public information. I had no idea when I filed the freedom of information request that the permission to share the information publicly was gonna be based on who was making the request. So I think that’s interesting, and I think this has shown for me anyway, this is how to get the contracts in the public, is to have it pass through council. It’s not coming into confidential, it’s coming into public session, but it’s gonna go redacted to the public if they were to ask for it.

[2:16:28] So that’s the confusing part, is that I would have thought these would have come back redacted, or we would see them in closed session, or under freedom of information, the information is public and is able to be shared. So if there was to be, so in this case, I did three amendments that said bring forward the executed contracts, and they all passed. So in this worked very well. So if I were to, in future, want to make a policy change so that that was always the case, and it wasn’t not needing to be done every time, there was an intended social service contract.

[2:17:12] Can I just ask through you to staff what the best way is to bring that forward? I’m gonna have the clerk respond.

[2:17:47] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Happy to discuss what the options are. It depends on whether it would be by law, whether it would be a separate policy. We can certainly have that conversation offline that may result in a communication to a future standing committee, should you wish. Okay, Councillor. Yeah, I just wanted to say thank you, like this is what I was looking for, the contracts are here, they’re unredacted, and I look forward to just making that policy, thank you.

[2:18:31] Okay, so we’re on that consortium of things that Councillor Ferrer moved, Councillor Ferrer, go ahead. Thanks, Mayor, I just need to make a comment on the dashboard myself, if you don’t mind. So I just wanted to say, like I appreciate the work that staff has brought forward with this. When I brought this to committee, my intention was to inform the people of London about the exact data and the real numbers and stats of our homelessness crisis that we have here in the city. I don’t want to have any decisions made on narratives, I want to see it based on data because that is the best way forward, that is the best way to bring policy.

[2:19:06] Now I’ve said here, this chamber is before, and I’ll just parse my words as much as I can, but I have a lot of, I’m not too happy or satisfied with some of the directions that we’ve had when it comes to our homelessness response, and I believe that we need to be informing the public and informing council as much as we can with the real numbers, with the real data. So that’s why I brought this forward. This dashboard will allow us to know the inflows and outflows of homelessness, how people are falling into homelessness, who is getting out, what types of supports we’re providing, what types of housing supports we’re providing and give us an actual real-time estimate and numbers month to month in a lot of the areas that we’re going to be reporting out so we can have the most up-to-date and consistent information possible.

[2:19:50] It’s something that I wanted to give to the public so you can go online at any time of the day that is convenient for you and look at those numbers and look at that data so you can inform your response to us and your communications to us. It’s also something for us counselors here so we can inform our decisions as well. I am really looking forward to the first phase of that data coming forward. I’m looking forward to the entire thing getting implemented. I know this is going to be very useful for us at council and for the public at large. So I just wanted to say, I appreciate council supporting this up to this point and I appreciate staff doing the work.

[2:20:25] And I’m really looking forward to once we get that dashboard up and running. Sorry, I was fixing something else. I don’t know if you asked the question or are you just done talking? I’m done. Sorry, my apologies for that. I had to sort out a meeting thing. Okay, thank you for that. Any other speakers to this group of motions? Okay, we’re going to open that for voting on. Closing the vote motion carries 15.

[2:21:13] Go ahead, councilor. Okay, first on the list, I have item three. That’s affordable home ownership program relaunch as it relates to bills, number 277 and 281. I’ll put that on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor. Councilor Stevenson. Thank you to keep things moving. I have got a referral, so I’ll move it first. Would you like me to read it out? I don’t think it’s on the agenda, so yes, please. But the staff report dated July 14th, 2025 related to the affordable home ownership program relaunch be referred to a future meeting of the community and protective services committee to allow civic administration to come back with a business case for the province, requesting reallocation of the funds to another affordable housing purpose.

[2:22:00] For example, repairs to LMCH social housing, repairs to affordable rental units, rent affordability assistance, or housing related supports. I’d like to see if there’s a seconder for that referral. Councilor Cady? Okay, that’s moved and seconded. Would you like to speak to it? Would anybody else like to speak to it? Go ahead, Councilor Lehman. No, thank you, through you, Chair, to staff. Are we able to use this funding towards other programs?

[2:22:37] In particular, let’s say our winter response program. Go ahead, Mr. Feldman. Thank you, and through you, Mr. Chair, the funding is intended to be used for affordable housing programs. So in the motion repairs to LMCH social housing would not be an eligible request that we can make to the province, but things that relate to our affordable housing program would be. Thank you, other speakers. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Your worship, so through you, I will not be supporting this referral.

[2:23:21] And I’m gonna try and sum it up as quickly as I can. First, as we’ve heard, LMCH repairs would not be eligible for this. Neither would shelter services. This is for affordable housing. And it would require a business case to go to the province and through you, your worship, like to ask staff if Mr. Feldman can indicate whether we have any projects even ready to submit to the province right now, immediately that would benefit from funding. Go ahead.

[2:23:55] Through you, Mr. Chair, nothing immediately at this time. Thank you, so we don’t have anything ready to go to replace this. More importantly, the reason I’m not supporting this referral is I’m not interested in replacing this with something else. I think that this proposal is a good proposal. I think that this speaks to the housing needs assessment that we received earlier this year that spoke to the barriers in the missing middle that prevent people from moving to rental into homeownership.

[2:24:32] I think it also, and the proof is in the pudding, and I’ll speak to it more on the main motion. I’m not gonna try and get into it too much on the referral, but the reason we have this funding, and I want folks to think about this really clearly, this is Harper and McGinty era funding that we spent all of, got back because loans were repaid, and now have the opportunity to spend again to get another group of people into housing. And the program has proposed, also requires anyone taking out this loan to provide 5% back on the capital gains that they realize when they sell the home.

[2:25:16] So we’re actually taking out a 5% equity investment in a home to do this. We’re moving people from rental into homeownership. It’s a loan program. They have to repay it if they vacate the home in 20 years, and we know that most people don’t stay in their first home. It’s a starter home, and then they build some equity, and then they move on. And that’s been the experience in the use of this program previously. And I’ve also seen the commentary that it’s only gonna help a limited number of people. And I’ve seen the 124 number, but actually it’s gonna help double that because it’s going to free up 124 rental units.

[2:25:53] The people who are looking desperately for rental units can then attain and move into. Our housing supports have to cross a spectrum of needs in the community. It cannot be all focused in one area because housing is a continuum, and we need to move people along that continuum, both up and down. We see retirees downsize and move back down to smaller homes. But we see other folks needing to get into the housing market. There are a number of factors, most of which are well out of our control when we talk about mortgage risk assessment by the banks, interest rates, the federal policies there.

[2:26:29] But we are taking money, and it’s not our money. It’s not municipal dollars. It was contributed by the senior levels of government. As I said, in the Harper McGinty era that we spent once, and now we get the benefit to spend again. This is a program that other municipalities have had success with. It’s a program we’ve had success with, so I’m not interested to refer it to come up with ideas about what else to spend it on. I want to support the program as it’s in front of us from staff. Okay, other speakers to the referral, Councillor Trostav. Sorry, Councillor Trostav.

[2:27:02] Councillor Pribble actually had his hand up and I wrote him down, my apologies. I’ll put you next after him. Thank you, Mayor, and as well stated, just know that it has been out to one of the positive initiatives. And if you look at the repayment, we are actually to balance this even a little bit higher than kind of what we started with. So it is positive, but I do have the questions to the staff. Because I certainly don’t want to jeopardize this. I certainly don’t want to lose this money for our community because that’s $3.1 million is a good sum of money. But my question is, the way the motion you see in front of us, do you believe that based on the affordable housing definition from the higher levels of government for this initiative, do you believe any of the initiatives proposed in the motion would potentially qualify for this amount?

[2:28:06] To Felberg. Through you, Mr. Chair. So anticipating this answer, I actually looked at the provincial website this morning to identify the definition of affordable housing. And yes, there are some elements of this motion that would fit within that. And that is something that we could examine across our portfolio to see where there’s options. The one thing I will also note is that this program does not just help the London community, it also helps the county. This is service manager money. This isn’t property tax dollars. So we are also assisting homeowners or potential homeowners within the county, which is part of our service manager obligations.

[2:28:44] Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. One more follow up and I’m going to wait. Mr. Felberg, oh, he said one more follow up but he’s just waiting to— I’m waiting. It’s okay. Okay, go ahead. Sorry, I was waiting for you if you were ready. No, the other follow up I have, if we were to defer it, is there a certain timeline from the parallel level of government that if we don’t continue with this initiative or we don’t introduce others, that we could potentially lose this amount?

[2:29:18] Is there a certain deadline? Mr. Felberg. Through you, Mr. Chair. No, it would depend on what it is we’re proposing to the province and that they actually may not approve the business case or a change and they could reallocate the funding to another municipality that’s searching for similar programs or similar funding for these types of programs. Okay, so the way I understand it and please come from me that I’m accurate, there’s no timeline deadline, but if you propose a different initiative, business case to the higher levels of government, they might not accept it and they will not say, dear London, it’s not accepted, come up with something else.

[2:30:01] They might relocate the money to another municipality. Is my understanding correct? Mr. Chair, thank you very much. Just use the microphone so people at home can hear. Through you, Mr. Chair, yes, that’s correct. Thank you very much, no more questions? I only say that all of us can see you nodding, but the camera doesn’t flip to you unless the microphone’s on, so people who are watching along can’t. Okay, Councillor Troso. Thank you, I’ll keep my points very brief because I think they were already made very well by the deputy mayor.

[2:30:38] The only thing I would add to that is when this motion says reallocation of funds to another affordable housing purpose, doesn’t that render this referral contrary to the main motion? And I guess maybe it’s too late to raise that. But regardless of whether this is contrary or not, I’m not going to be supporting the referral because I think on its face, based on the information that’s in our file in the staff report, this is a viable program. So I’ll be supporting this program and I won’t be supporting the referral.

[2:31:15] Thanks Councillor. I’ll just let you know amendments can be contrary. Referrals back have a much wider threshold because you can refer back for various reasons that could do something different because it still has to come back through council process. It’s contrary when we would be making a fundamentally different decision and finalizing it today. So I just wanted to clarify, that’s why the clerks and I talk about it and that’s why you’d see something slightly different from a with perspective on a referral than you would on an actual amendment. Councillor Ferreira.

[2:31:50] Thanks Mayor. Some great comments from the deputy mayor. I gotta say the same thing. He covered a lot of good points. The only thing that I guess I would add and I will be speaking to the main motion after this, but I’m not going to support the referral. And it’s simply because like this is a program that is a program that can self sustain itself. If we were to take the money out of this program and put it somewhere else, that’s a one time allocation. So this program has the potential to revolve and continue to roll on and roll on and roll on. So 124 households we could help actually double that because yes, as individuals are moving from their rental into a home that they’ve acquired with the assistance of this program, other individuals are going to move into that rental.

[2:32:35] So there is that migration effect between the housing continuum itself. But as it continues, it has the potential to build and it’s got, it has no pressure on the taxpayer base. This is a program that funds itself. Imagine if this program was much bigger and imagine if we had no pressure on the top property tax rate. I understand that that is some big dreams looking in the air, but it’s not just 124. It is 124 households that will be helping. So I’m not going to support the referral. I appreciate the program as it is. We saw success as it was from its last iteration.

[2:33:09] We have the monies and the funds that came from that program. I guess I would also add that if we did go with this referral and we did go with paying it back in some way, shape, or form, we do have individuals who are on the program right now that are continually contributing to this revolving fund. So how would that work exactly would be my question? So I’m not going to support this and I will speak to the main motion when we get to it. Mr. Felberg, the question about there are people out there who are continuing to pay back into the fund still. Through your worship.

[2:33:43] So yes, there are 97 remaining loans that we have. So as those reach maturity, assuming they haven’t reached that 20 year threshold, they would be obligated to pay back a capital gain to the city as well as the full value of their loan. Other speakers to this? This is on the referral. Go ahead, Councilor McAllister and then Councilor Stevenson. Thank you and through the mayor. Appreciate the comments from the deputy mayor, pretty much along the lines of what I was thinking as well. I definitely see this program as a success.

[2:34:18] I feel it’s self-sustaining. I know people who would benefit from this program, just a quick glance at when you look at the real estate, my ward would be one of the few wards where people could actually access this and purchase a home. I have folks who are stuck in this situation. They’ve been working awhile. You look at people’s salaries and I think things have got harder in terms of what they can afford. And so getting someone into a starter home, getting them out of the rental market, these are the pegs that are missing from the property ladder and I said this at committee, I think this is one thing that we can do at our level, appreciate this money.

[2:34:53] It came from higher levels of government. But this is a program that we have seen success in the city with and I’d like to see it continue. So I’m not interested in referring it at this time. Thank you. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I appreciate the different ways of looking at this and I don’t have a problem with the program itself. My issue is we get to set priorities here and how the funding spent and the fact that it isn’t municipal dollars really is irrelevant.

[2:35:24] They’re taxpayer dollars that we are stewards of to prioritize in the way that will serve the whole of community the best. And from where I sit, when this idea came forward to relaunch this, maybe we thought we were gonna be further ahead in terms of homelessness. Maybe we didn’t know we were dealing with all of these end of mortgage situations and the 110 million that’s needed in repairs in our LMCH social housing.

[2:35:57] And so at this point in time, if this were presented to us as with this 3.1 million that’s been sitting in the reserve for a long time, this program ran from 2008 to 2013. That was 12 years ago. And there’s a reason why that program stopped. And we’re calling it a success because a whole bunch of people sold their home before 20 years and had to pay the 5% capital gains. They don’t pay it if they stay in for 20 years and the loans forgiven.

[2:36:30] So it’s only the people who are either moving on and we’re assuming that they’re moving up to another house, but maybe they just couldn’t carry it. How many of the ones that have paid back, it was not a successful venture for them. So we can call it a success, but we don’t have the facts to back that up. And when we look at the financial strain that residents are under right now, so many people are under financial strain, whether they’re trying to keep the roof over their head that they have, whether they’re trying to find a roof or whether they’re on a 10 year wait list for our social housing, they are hurting.

[2:37:08] And they’ve been impacted by the high property tax rates that we’ve had the last couple of years. And we can talk about budget at budget time, but I really think we need that budget lens on every time we make a financial decision. Every time we allocate money, it’s not like, oh, this was free money that was sitting in a reserve for the last 12 years. And now all of a sudden we’re gonna relaunch this program. That’s money, if it was presented to us in a motion that said we could relaunch the homeownership program, or we could do this, or we could give money to the housing stability bank, whatever the options are, then council could say these are the priorities that we’re choosing on behalf of all Londoners.

[2:37:47] It’s really hard for me to look at taxpayers who are pleading with us to help them financially. And I understand there’s a small group that want to buy a house, and I understand that. But we’ve got so many low income Londoners, and they are hearing us say we are gonna give $25,000 that may not have to be paid back if they stay in their home for 20 years to people who are making under $95,000 a year. Do you know how many Londoners think, why are you giving money to people who make $95,000 a year, and who have up to $100,000 sitting in liquid assets in a bank account?

[2:38:26] I understand these people are trying to save a money for a down payment, I get it. But we have a 10 year wait list on our social housing, we have hundreds, maybe thousands of people that don’t have a roof over their head. And I think it’s worth referring this for one month, the program’s been shut down for 12 years, that we could refer this and ask the province if we could use it to a more urgent need. I find it very hard to believe that the province would say no you are stuck in this to use money that you haven’t used in 12 years, has to be used for this purpose.

[2:38:58] And I’ve had communication with the Ministry of Housing to confirm that we can do a business case. I would be willing to bet that they would let us use it for a more urgent need if we wanted to. And if not, then at least we could say the Londoners, we gave it a chance. And this is what the money is for, and we might as well put it to good use. But in the meantime, $95,000 income level, $100,000 in the bank, and that’s where we’re gonna put $3.1 million. And we don’t know that the people who are paying it back are success stories, maybe a few are, but how many of them was broken dreams?

[2:39:41] I’ll turn the chair over to the deputy mayor, I’m gonna speak now. I’ll take the chair and recognize Mayor Morgan. I’m just gonna ask Mr. Felberg a question, ‘cause it was articulated through the presiding officer that we’re gonna give money to people who have $95,000 of income and $100,000 of liquid assets. These are up to amounts. How does staff actually administer this program? Who do they help when they get a bunch of applications? And how does it work from that perspective? Mr. Felberg. Through you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

[2:40:15] So when the program opens up, it’ll be on a first-come, first-serve basis. And what we will be doing, we’ll be assessing that income level and assessing what their liquid assets are. I’d also note that there’s a cap of 115,000 for a couple as well, which is another eligible participant. So as we work through that, those folks will, obviously, if they have a lower threshold and can afford a mortgage, that’s a very important element of this. If the banks are not going to issue them a mortgage, they would not be eligible for this program. So there still is an income test and there still is a financial liquidity and ability to make your monthly payments that has to be tested, which is tested by a third party, not the city.

[2:41:00] Mayor Morgan. So I wanna follow up on that. So the program is designed to fill a gap for people who have some liquidity, have enough to actually convince a financial institution or very close to convincing a financial institution that they could give them a mortgage so that they can go out and actually buy a home, whether or not it’s not quite there yet. So it is trying to fill a gap and that is what it is designed to do is that correct? And that is why people would have to have some assets is because they’re still having an actual full mortgage on a house like many Londoners do.

[2:41:36] Mr. Felberg. Through you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Yes, that’s correct. And if you look at the average rent in this range is about $2,800 a month. And the average mortgage that an individual might have for a $500,000 mortgage with $25,000 down and say 4%. You’re looking at about $2,200 a month. So they still need to be able to make those monthly payments and still need to be able to carry that mortgage into the future. So it is opening up.

[2:42:07] It is opening up by taking folks out of rental. It’s opening up that bottleneck that we have of finding new homes for those people on the wait list. It’s part of that entire continuum that we’re working on and trying to meet the Londoners where they are. Mayor Morgan, I just wanted to ask those two questions. So thank you. I will return the chair to you. I have no one else on the speaker’s list. Any other speakers? Okay, this is on the referral. So we’re gonna open just the referral for voting.

[2:42:51] Those in the vote, motion fails two to 13. Okay, so I’m back to the main motion that was put on the floor by the chair. And you wanna speak to it? Go ahead, Councilor Ferra. Thank you, Mayor. I’ll just add some things. So I know there’s some discussion around the 95 or 90,000 K a year for income or the combined income of 115,000 a year. And for anybody who’s been looking for a house in these days and age, you know, you can’t even get approved at 90,000 a year for a mortgage of $500,000.

[2:43:24] Anybody knows that? You know, lenders, depending on who it is, they really kind of will look at your debt to income ratio on two categories. The gross service debt ratio and the total debt service ratio, which could range from the GDS around 36 to 40. And for the TDS could range anywhere around 44%. There’s a great online mortgage tool calculator from the Government of Canada website that you can plug these numbers in. So I did, just so I could read back some to you. And I had to finagle some numbers so I could actually get approved at the $115,000 mark.

[2:43:58] But for a property valued at $450,000 at a 5.5% interest rate, which is a little bit low right now, from what lenders are putting out at a 25 year amortization rate, five year fixed term, $90,000 gross income. And I was really unrealistic with this. Heating costs at $150. Property tax at $250 is zero credit card payment, zero card payment. And just I would add, you know, you also need some credit rating too, which means you’re gonna have some sort of debt. So this is unrealistic. But just to prove the point, I would not be approved for that $450,000 house at $90,000. Another example, and I’m only gonna do the next one, but for the $500,000 property at $95,000, still unrealistic, $100 credit card payment per month, property taxes at $150, heating costs at $150, a card payment at $100, still not approved.

[2:44:53] And that’s on the online mortgage calculator for the Government of Canada. So you can check that out. I’ll just do one more, at a $500,000 house, 5% down payment, 5.25 interest rate, a little bit closer to reality, at a 25 year amortization period, five year fixed, $150,000 joint income. I was trying to get as realistic as I could, $250 heating cost, ‘cause it’s an older house, $250 property tax per month, $200 credit card payment, I wish I had that. I would get approved. And I’d barely get approved, because I’m almost at the GDS ratio, and my total debt service ratio is 0.14% below the threshold where they’d say no.

[2:45:36] So the reality is, is the cost of housing today is not the same as it was before, and people with this level of income cannot afford those starter homes. So the program is set up in a way that is literally based on the situation we are today. My outrage comes from the amount of the house cost itself. And the fact that individuals at this type of income or this type of family income would not be approved. So just to put things into perspective, this is why we see the numbers the way they are. And I did see the mayor ask about the liquid assets part, so I’m not gonna ask about that.

[2:46:11] But that’s just how it is. Okay, other speakers to the main motion. Go ahead, Council Raman. Thank you and through you. So I appreciate that analysis that you’ve done, because I looked at it similarly, and found some of the assumptions to be flawed as well. I think part of the challenge that I had with this program is when we talk about it being a Harper and McGinty era project and an iteration of a program, some of those assumptions still seem to be presumably there as if the affordability hasn’t changed so dramatically.

[2:46:58] Even today, there was a report on how substantially the middle classes being hit by the economic reality that we’re facing right now. But at the same time, we need to find ways to assist the missing middle. With that in mind, I did have a question related to the wording that’s in the application. It says the applicant must agree not to lease the home. The rest of that sentence says must be their principal residence, but can it be their principal residence and in the case of ARUs ADUs, can they have an ARU or an ADU?

[2:47:43] Well, thank you through you, Mr. Chair. So that isn’t something we’ve actually had come up yet, but that’s a great question. I would assume that if it is their principal residence, we would work with them to allow an ARU, given that the planning rules have also changed a lot for units. What we’re not looking for, we’re not looking for investors. We’re looking for first-time home buyers, folks with low income, we’re trying to allow them to be self-sustaining and create their own capital and their own assets. Thank you and through you, I would love to see that language removed from the documentation going forward because the reality is for the missing middle that having an ARU or an ADU is part of potentially that reality for them in order to make housing affordable.

[2:48:32] We want people to be successful, let’s give them every tool possible, especially as we look at meeting with them to give them information about how to access the spending and to make it. So I wanted to follow up a little bit on that piece. I know it says our staff will work with applicants on this process, but we have a suite of tools available to people right now to help them to be housing ready and to give them opportunities. So I’m wondering what that might look like. Is it just a matter of someone comes in and says, “Hey, you know what, housing is where I want to be.

[2:49:07] “I want to own my own home and I saw this program,” or is it that we are able to, through our conversations along the housing continuum, talk to them about every opportunity that’s in front of them and every opportunity there may be to get them into a house. And I think part and parcel to that is if we can look at stacking some of these other things, there may be more opportunity if we’re able to do that. So I’m wondering how comprehensive those discussions will be. Go ahead.

[2:49:40] Through you, Mr. Chair. So each applicant would be taken on its own merits. We’d review every particular individual who’s taken out alone and determine what they are able to afford. What I would also say is an ARU, although we do have programs, we do have our $45,000 loan and we also have our $45,000 forgivable loan for an ARU. There is still a significant capital cost. So again, an individual with that lower income of $95,000 plus a $500,000 home value may not be able to afford it until they’ve put enough capital into the property.

[2:50:16] So it could be something that they couldn’t do for another 10 years or so. What I would say is that is certainly something we can explore and we will work with all the applicants to find ways for them to fit on that continuum. And that’s a big part of our affordable housing programs. How do we get folks into housing? Thank you, and I appreciate that. I do see potential though that they could still rent a room or do something else to help offset that amount and that’s why I would like to see that not included in the application. As part of this program as well, there’s a component that asks for the applicant to get a home inspection.

[2:50:56] And then it talks later about any significant cost to consider when it comes to home ownership. I’m just wondering within our ability to help people understand the costs associated with home ownership, how much help can we give folks around what those costs might be down the road and into the future for repairs and maintenance? Go ahead, Mr. Felberg. Just so I’ve got you correct, Councillor. So what you’re looking for is some sort of guidance on the typical home ownership cost for individuals.

[2:51:31] That’s certainly something that we can create, we can put on the website, we can have available to folks. As we’re developing our program materials, we can also include some of those in that as typical costs and typical things to think about. I’d also note that real estate agents have a significant, the OREA has a significant amount of information on that, mortgage brokers, so they’re the banks. So it is something that we can find out in the community and develop specific for our program. Excellent. My last question will be about reporting back.

[2:52:03] And I’m just wondering what kind of report back we will see and how we will get those updates and what kind of tweaks we may be able to do along the way should we need to based on those reports. Mr. Felberg. Through you, Mr. Chair. So I hadn’t really put much thought to reporting back at this point, but I’m thinking that we would want to at least have the program open for at least six months or so before and to determine how many folks have come through. And then at that point, we could report back to Council. If there is any direction to make some of those tweaks, we can take that as well.

[2:52:39] I think that six months to a year, we’d probably want to even go to that annual sort of tracking that we do through the roadmap as well. And we could coordinate something with that. Thank you much, appreciate it. Other speakers to this main motion now. Go ahead, Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you. Your worship, I just want to make a comment. I’m very supportive of relaunching this program. I think it’s a great opportunity of supporting homeownership, especially young people. So I’m glad we’re relaunching it and very supportive.

[2:53:16] Thank you, Councilor Stevenson. Thank you. I appreciate my colleague’s stance on this. I just can’t support it. And it’s not that I’m opposed to the program ‘cause I understand why the province has done it, but it’s up to each municipality to prioritize and spend these provincial and federal dollars to meet the needs of our community. And a lot of cities and municipalities may have a handle on their homelessness and their social housing might be in good shape and maybe their waiting list is a reasonable length of time. But sitting as a city councilor in 2025, I cannot in good conscience support a homeownership program that there’s no doubt people would benefit from and need when we’ve got the conditions on our streets and in our social housing like we have right now.

[2:54:05] And to not even explore the options that we could do with that money, I think is, I just can’t vote yes and look people in the social housing and in the street in the eyes and say that we were helping people with salaries of, we’d say up to 95,000, but that is not low income per probably 75% of the city, I would say, would not consider 90, 95,000 a year for an individual to be low income. So as excited and happy as 124 households might be with the conditions that we face in this city right now, I get to be very much a no on this.

[2:54:49] And I would like to find a way for this council to be more looking at the big picture and making these big picture decisions instead of having things come to us and we say yes or no without taking a look at what our options are, I would like to have more options. And I would like to be looking at the big picture, I’d like to know that we have money to put people indoors this winter that we have a plan for helping those most in need in our city and that’s why I’ll be voting no to this.

[2:55:35] And I do appreciate, I’ve had some people say we focus a lot on the homeless and our social housing and it’s good to have help for some other people. But as I said, if our city was in a different shape, the state of our city was better, I’d happily support this. It’s the reality on the street that has me saying no. Other speakers, this is as came through committee. Okay, that being right, Louis, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship.

[2:56:08] Oh, hold on one sec. Yeah, okay, you’re good to go. We’re just making sure you didn’t speak twice, so we’re good. No, I spoke on the referral first. I know, you’re good. So Your Worship, when we talk about setting priorities, we have set them all to priorities. We have set priorities on which roads we repair when, but we don’t only repair arterial roads.

[2:56:45] We repair neighborhood connectors, we repair residential streets. When we are setting priorities around park maintenance and recreation programs, again, we set priorities, whereas the demand, what is the usage? There are always priorities to be set, and there are always multiple priorities. When we snowplow in the winter, we prioritize roads based on where transit and EMS and police and others need to get through first before we go into the residential side streets. And when it comes to housing, we have to also prioritize a little bit of funding for everything.

[2:57:25] And when we talk about some of the other things that have been mentioned, I think it’s important to underscore through this council and the previous council. This council’s continued the commitment in its multi-year budget, but we’ve contributed and made the commitment to over 65 million in capital investments into LMCH alone. That’s just our public housing. Not money’s not all spent yet. There is limit to how fast you can get money out the door when you need contractors and supply chains and everything else.

[2:58:02] When it comes to homelessness, we’ve made record investments again. And I’m gonna point to just arcade alone. Prior to their creating the shelter beds at Cronan Warner, we were 60 beds less overnight than we have today. We have 100 units of highly supportive housing in operation in the city that weren’t in existence two years ago. We are putting record investments into these areas, but we also have to put a bit of investment into the next stage in the continuum, which is moving people out of rental units and into housing so that other people who need rental units can take those rental units.

[2:58:46] So I think this is a good investment. And Councillor Ferrer was banging on the nose when he talked about the fact that this is a self-sustaining program. We’ve taken their loan repayments and the interest from those loan repayments, and now we have enough of seed money to go out and do another batch. And we still have, and I don’t have the report in front of me, I think it’s 97 loans outstanding to still be repaid. And as that money comes in, we’ll have another pot of seed money that we can do another round and another round. That’s how the program was envisioned to work. I can’t help but notice the former member of Parliament from Burlington is sitting in the gallery today.

[2:59:21] Mr. Wallace was part of that Harper government that supported a transfer of funding to the province and created this federal provincial partnership back in 2008. So, I mean, this came forward from, you know, individuals like Finance Minister Flaherty. Not exactly the paragon of championing housing, but recognize the value of moving people out of rental and into home ownership and what that did for the rest of the continuum. So, I think that when we’re looking at this program, we have to take it in stride in terms of the scope we’re talking about $3.1 million.

[2:59:59] Yes, it’s not a large investment, but it is a self-sustaining investment that we will get back over time. And it really does pale in comparison to some of the other major investments we’ve made in other areas. So, I think taking a little bit of money and putting it into this so that we are creating, so that we’re opening that bottleneck just a little bit. It’s not going to be a lot, but we are opening that bottleneck a little bit to move people out of the rental and into the housing market. You know, Councilor Ferrer cited several good examples, but what he didn’t say, and I don’t say this to embarrass you, Council Ferrer, but city council couldn’t afford to buy a house today.

[3:00:41] That’s where the housing market is. ‘Cause Council Ferrer doesn’t make 90,000 and neither do any other member of council sitting around this horseshoe, I’ll accept the mayor on that. Different job though, and you have to do the whole city. But that’s the reality today, and so to say that we’re going to create a little bit of an opening that bottleneck for some folks who as a household, two people, $115,000. That’s that young couple’s first chance to get into a first house and get out of the rental market.

[3:01:15] That’s the kind of opportunity that we’re creating here. That’s that person who’s working 40 hours a week in a factory making 20 bucks an hour, maybe if they’ve got a little bit of money saved up for a down payment, they can utilize this to get into that housing market. That’s the kind of opportunity that we’re going to create with this program. So I’m fully supportive of it. I appreciate it, and I think that reporting back through the roadmap to 3000 update makes the most sense, ‘cause I do see this as part of the roadmap to 3000 in many ways because it’s opening up other rentals. So that’s why I just wanted to share. Those are all the reasons that I’m supporting this, and I think it’s a good program.

[3:01:51] I think we should get it restarted, and let’s open up that bottleneck just a little bit in the housing continuum. Okay, other ones are right, Callister. Go ahead. Thanks, just double checking, I was on the list. And again, thank you to Deputy Mayor. I think you said a lot of my comments. I’ll try to be a bit briefer with mine. But I hear the discussion in terms of, you know, the realities that Londoners are facing. And I know a lot of people who are facing the reality, which I think this program will help.

[3:02:25] I know we keep referencing young people, but I mean, people have been stuck in this limbo for a while, like young is a relative term for people who have been locked out of the housing market. And I would just like to point to the fact that I know a lot of people where they are paying exorbitant rents, which are more than a lot of people I know in terms of their mortgage payments. And that’s the reality that a lot of Londoners are facing, is they are being bled dry by the craziness that’s happened in the rental market. I mean, obviously you’ve got a lot of folks who are cutting those situations where, you know, properties were bought, turned into investment vehicles, and we’re seeing the results of that.

[3:03:01] And I really think we have to afford them this opportunity to get into the housing market, because even those programs ended in 2013, it went completely off the rails after that. I mean, this program kind of predated the craziness we’re seeing now, but this is the kind of program that we need to have in place. And we can do multiple things at the same time. Like, the reality is also that there can be multiple truths at the same time. And yes, there are a lot of people who are right at the bottom who are struggling. I mean, I know some people who are employed, who are squeezed completely out and ended up homeless, and they were the working poor.

[3:03:34] And programs like this could have helped some of these people get out of those situations, but they had no alternative. When their rental property was put up for sale, they were completely locked out. They had no real alternative. We end up with people on the waiting list. We have to have programs like this. And to the point about homelessness redirecting resources, homelessness is not gonna be solved by the city alone. That is a situation where all levels of government need to be on the same page and dedicate resources to multiple things. That’s not a one and done situation. And this is one tool in our tool chest.

[3:04:06] I said this is a committee as well. But this is a tool that we absolutely need in terms of the housing spectrum. Yeah, in terms of numbers, you might not think this will help a ton of people, but in terms of freeing up other spaces, we have got to rebuild the property ladder ‘cause it is completely broken. And a tool like this will absolutely help rebuild that. So I will be supporting that. Any other speakers? Okay. Seeing none, this is the motion as it came through committee. I will open that for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 13.

[3:05:07] Okay. So there is no commentary from the gallery. It’s an end. If there’s no commentary from the gallery, people get to stay. So I want people to be able to stay and listen to the meeting, but there is no interjections from the gallery. So that is the decorum rules in the chamber. You get to stay, sir. You get to watch the meeting. You get to do what you’re doing up there. But if you’re going to speak out, I’m going to have to eventually ask you to leave. So I just want you to be able to stay and listen to the meeting. So no more outbursts, please. Thank you. Okay.

[3:05:40] We have like six more items pulled from this committee. It’s been three hours. There is the ability to just have a refreshment in the side room just so people want to take a break now might be an opportune time. I don’t think, but I’m not going to wait until the end of the draft report, that could be another hour from now. I’ll move 15-minute break. Yeah, count these. Yeah, what? Let’s go ahead. I was just going to say I would prefer it to be less than 15 minutes. We do have the public sitting in the gallery waiting. Can we go 10 minutes at the most?

[3:06:18] I can go 10. But I’m going to keep it to 10 minutes. That’s going to be really tight. But you moved to motion for 15. I’ll take it back if I can. Yeah, but just what do you want to move? 10. Okay, is there a seconder for 10? Councillor Hopkins, I’m just going to do a hand vote. All those in favor of 10 minutes? Motion carries. Okay, that’s 4 o’clock. Okay, please be seated.

[3:20:00] Okay, we are in the middle of the Councilor for our committee’s report. And I’ll let you go to the next item, Councillor. Thank you, Mayor. The next item we got is item seven. That’s the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Community Efficiency Financing Agreement for Better Homes London as it relates to Bill’s number 278 and 279. I’ll put that on the floor. Okay, that is on the floor. I’ll look for any speakers. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, again, to keep things moving because I have a referral, just move it right away.

[3:20:36] It says that the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated July 14th, 2025, related to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Community Efficiency Financing Agreement for Better Homes. One, the staff report dated July 14th, 2025, related to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Community Efficiency Financing Agreement for Better Homes London. Be referred to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee to allow civic administration to report back on a concierge model using budget case P56 1A 2024 staffing costs to assist the public in utilizing the loan retrofit programs available through federal, provincial, and energy providers.

[3:21:21] And two, the mayor be requested to send a letter to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, advocating for long-term federal funding to support municipal climate action and energy efficiency initiatives without requiring municipal cost sharing. I do have a part three, but I’m gonna leave that one off. I’ll look for a seconder for that. It’s been read out. Councillor van Mirbergen. Okay, moved and seconded. I’ll let you speak to it if you’d like. Yeah, this time I will speak to this one first because I just wanna explain what I’m doing.

[3:21:55] So when I look at this report, there is a requirement to contribute a lot of municipal funding. So what’s not on the chart on table one on page 48 are the wages that are part of the business case 1A that was in our multi-year budget. So it’s actually 1.9 to 4 million in wages from 2024 to 2027 is what we have for this program in our multi-year budget.

[3:22:29] So when you look at adding that to the administrative wages that are funded by FCM, you’ve got 73% admin cost to capital. So oftentimes when we’re looking at charities and stuff, you look at the admin cost to doing what it is you actually set out to do. And I understand that they’re running a concierge system as well to try to help people engage in the retrofit programs. But that’s a 73% admin to capital. So we would be spending or FCM would be spending 3.7 million in admin for 5 million in loans.

[3:23:10] And the other thing is our portion, we’re actually contributing 64% of what FCM is contributing. So that’s a big investment on our municipal side that we’re putting in 3.4 million for their 5.3. So there are a lot of retrofit energy programs out there federally, provincially, and through the energy providers. This program, by stepping into this, Windsor had a big case like this. In fact, theirs was really big.

[3:23:42] It was gonna actually make an impact in terms of their GHGs. They were looking to do a lot of houses. And they did a feasibility analysis by a third party. Our feasibility analysis is by one of the ones getting the funding to say, you know what? We’re not gonna move forward with this because it’s just too much municipal funding and a lot of pressure to continue this going forward. So whether there’s a huge subscription to the retrofit loans as has happened in some cities where it’s, you know, in essence sold out within a few weeks or a few months, there’s gonna be pressure to contribute more capital to keep that going or at the end of the four years.

[3:24:22] So what I wanna do is use the funding for the wages that we have in here for 2024. And I’m open to some changes in terms of the amendment wording on this. But to have a certain amount of staffing that instead of doing all the loan calculations and all these kinds of things that we’d be taking on administratively can just connect people to the loan programs that are out there. And I think that will be great in terms of perception. You know, we’re moving forward, we’re helping connect people.

[3:24:56] Yet we’re not going to be bearing any risk of delinquent loans. The staff report says there’s no data on that because this is a new program that we wouldn’t have all that administrative handling and that we don’t have to contribute municipal dollars towards these federal programs. Advocating, you know, one part of this is to have the mayor advocate. Like, let’s have more of this federal funding, but let’s have them take it on, them run it. We can connect people to it, but we don’t wanna be spending municipal tax dollars to do that.

[3:25:27] And one of the things too is we’ve got these, we’re taking on another project, which I’m trying to say, look, we’ve heard Londoners, it’s too much property tax pressure. We, I think, and the reduction in property taxes that we’ve chosen for 2026 or we anticipate choosing with the mayor’s commitment to be under five. So far, everything is temporary. It’s a one-off reduction in our property taxes. We haven’t made those systemic changes to actually bring the administrative costs down for our city and we have a lot of issues in terms of what’s going on in our city.

[3:26:07] So what I’m suggesting is that we just scale this program back, use a few staff dollars to help connect people to the programs and release back into our multi-year budget the 1.5 million in capital and potentially a million or more in wages. I think that it’s less risk to the corporation and I think it’s more prudent. 30 seconds. To not be funding agencies to do these programs. Because we have to watch how much we want to solve, we want to help homelessness and we’re giving a lot of money and it’s building industries.

[3:26:46] This is the same thing with the climate. Why don’t we just connect people to the programs that exist rather than spending millions of dollars that we’re giving to agencies who are then, you know, again, like great about jobs but we don’t want to be building industries with municipal dollars. Okay, other speakers to the motion that’s on the floor which is now a move in second referral. Go ahead, Councillor Frank. Thank you. First question through you to staff and then some comments.

[3:27:19] I was just hoping to get staff maybe to clarify some of the budget amounts that we heard comments regarding the administrative costs to capital ratios and I was just wondering if staff can clarify what the funding is being allocated towards. Thank you through your worship. We have Mr. Stanford online who can answer these questions. Thank you and through your worship. My camera will not click on but our information about what the city is funding, it is 1.5 million in a capital allocation that is going to be repaid by the users of the program.

[3:28:04] There is an investment that came through the multi-year budget of around 400,000 divided over the four years that will not be recoverable but that is representing the city’s staff component brought into this program. There is a larger amount that’s referred to as the concierge component and that amount is actually covered by FCM through the grant and loan program that we are applying for through this particular process. Go ahead, Councillor Frank. Thank you.

[3:28:35] So just to clarify, it would be 1.5 of capital which we get repaid and then 400,000 over four years of which were already into year three or is it four years moving forward as a start of funding of this year moving forward. Mr. Stanford. Through your worship, the funding from the city will start next year when the program actually is launched and the 1.5 million is a portion that is available from the city including the portion that comes forward from the FCM that represent the capital component that residents of London would access through the LIC program, the local improvement charge program.

[3:29:20] Go ahead. Thank you. So those answers my questions and appreciate it from staff. I will be supporting this referral due to many reasons but one is generally I’m very supportive of this program due to the economic benefit to London and Londoners. As we heard, there is some investment from the city but it actually is a 3.5 to one leveraging ratio of the city’s financial contribution meaning we get more than three times back through this program by investing in it from the federal government to our local retrofit and contracting industries.

[3:29:55] It also provides provisions to assist lower income Londoners and I’ll remind folks that the federal retrofit program has ended so there is no federal retrofit funding available right now through the greener homes program or their low interest loans and the provincial retrofit program isn’t very well designed whether intentional or not, I won’t comment but I don’t believe it’s sufficient to address the need that we have for providing Londoners with tools of knowledge and financial support to make those retrofits for their homes. As a personal example, I’ve retrofit my home over the last 10 years, I’ve spent about 12,000 of my personal money and 5,000 federal incentives, I’ve moved towards an air source heat pump hybrid system, air source heat pump water heater, insulation, air sealing, smart thermostat and I accessed incentives whenever possible because I wouldn’t have done it without incentives and I’m now at the point where I’m saving about $1,000 a year in energy costs and it’s shifted from paying for natural gas to electricity which as we know as the primary shareholder of London Hydro, the more money that people are spending on electricity in the city, the more money we receive as a city in revenue through London Hydro.

[3:31:02] So that is an awesome opportunity for us to be looking at how we’re doing our energy shares and this is a personal example I just used to demonstrate the investment in our local economy. So that combined $17,000 went into local businesses who came and did those retrofits in my home. And so I’m really interested in trying to support our local economy. Additionally, we know that lower income lenders are paying $1,000 more per year in home energy use and this program is a way we can try to address people who are feeling the squeeze on their energy bills. And finally, as per risk, as per the report, providing improvement loans is a normal activity of business for the city.

[3:31:43] We’ve spent over 4.5 million of taxpayer dollars in a variety of CIP grants that we give out to developers and we don’t even necessarily get those back. We’ve also spent 42 million of taxpayer dollars waiving industrial development charges over the last five years. Again, I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. I’m saying we’re willing to invest in our economy to receive the benefit of having a strong local economy and we do it all the time to create economic benefit. So I think this is an incredible program. I think the money that it will be able to generate in our local economy and that can stay in our local economy is worth this investment and so that’s the reason I won’t support a referral and we’ll move, hopefully move forward with this program for lenders.

[3:32:24] Other speakers to the referral? Seeing none, we’re gonna open the referral for a vote. Oh, sorry, go ahead and dip me right, Louis. Sorry, Your Worship. I was a little slow with the hand there. So I thought I’d been thinking about this because I do see the value of a concierge program. I do wanna ask through you and if I didn’t hear it in your answer, Mr. Stanford, I apologize. But in addition to this program, would we be directing applicants to other programs at the same time?

[3:33:01] We heard during the Climate Emergency Action Plan update that Enbridge has some programs that they offer as we receive interest in this, where there’s a fit elsewhere, we’d be directing people there as well. Go ahead, Mr. Stanford. Through you, Your Worship, absolutely. That is the goal of these kinds of programs is to help link up individuals with the programs that are available, as well as the programs that are not readily accessible through information. The concierge service will have access to that information and that is the service they’re providing right now in a few other communities.

[3:33:40] Thank you. I appreciate that. Councilor Frank is not the only one. I took advantage of the federal greener homes loan program, low interest loan, put in a heat pump, smart thermostat, tankless hot water, took advantage of that, it’s a repayment over 10 years. But to Councilor Frank’s point, I’m saving almost as much of my energy bills already as I’m paying to repay the loan. So just from the reduction in natural gas use loan, I’m pretty much seeing my revenue incoming outgoing is pretty close to zero, not quite yet, but it will be over time.

[3:34:27] So I do see some value in this and I appreciate the fact that this is something that’s gonna be invested in. And Councilor Frank, where you really convinced me today, when you talked about the development charges waivers for industrial and the CIPs that we offer, in a couple items, we’re gonna be talking about funding for some BIA’s and some assistance for businesses there. And so I think that in weighing those things, I think that this is a relatively small investment.

[3:35:00] So I’m gonna be willing to support this. I know how valuable concierge service is gonna be because quite frankly, even myself accessing the federal program, it was way more complicated than it needed to be, quite honestly. And I won’t comment on the Ontario program either hall. Just say probably and leave it at that. But I do think that there is some value to this in the community, in the job creation as well, the economic stimulus.

[3:35:34] And this is a different way of providing some incentive to homeowners that we provide to businesses and industry as we’re growing our city. So I had thought about perhaps entertaining the referral, but I think Councilor Frank, you’ve convinced me to move ahead with the program that has been presented to us. All right, anybody else on the referral? Just the referral right now. Okay, seeing none, then we’ll open the referral for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion fails for 11.

[3:36:24] Okay, back to the main motion, which is the recommendation that came through committee. Any speakers, go ahead Councilor Raman. Thank you and through you. I did have some questions for staff. On this item, and I’m sorry, I haven’t sent them in advance, just looking comparatively last night on some of the programs that exist in Oakville, in Ottawa, and in other places where their hydro utilities have separate corporations where they can do things like heat pumps and provide services to their customers.

[3:36:59] I’m just wondering what kind of engagement we had with London Hydro on this file. Mr. Stanford, go ahead. Your worship, they are aware that we’re pursuing this program as far as direct involvement because they do not have initiatives that are available at this time for the residential program. They were not directly involved in our application process to date, but they are aware of potential opportunities in the future. Thank you, and I think it’s really important for us to know what a limiting factor this is for us as a city at this point.

[3:37:38] So we wanna talk about electrification, how we’re going to do more for the environment, and we wanna be able to be leaders in this space. We wanna make sure that the municipality that residents understand the tools that are in front of them, yet we have hindered and hampered our ability to do so with how we maneuver through having a corporation from the London Hydro side that can actually do these types of programs. Oakville, Ottawa, other places have had these kinds of programs in place for decades where they support the concierge model where they can be able to provide information to residents about heat pumps, about opportunities for additional ways of utilizing this type of funding.

[3:38:25] In the Ottawa example, they are part of the Better Homes. They have the Better Homes Ottawa brand. It is through a very similar initiative, but you’ll notice that the thresholds are quite different. So we’re talking about a very small amount of money that homeowners in London would actually be able to access to make their homes more energy efficient in Ottawa. It’s, I believe, over 100,000 that you can access if you so choose. So a more robust program. So I think as we continue these discussions, I think that they’re valuable, they’re warranted.

[3:38:59] We should be looking in this direction for opportunities, but our partner should be here at home. I do appreciate the fact that the report talked about the fact that administration had went out and said, you know, this shouldn’t have to be a one-off for each city to do itself. It should have more of a broader approach so that we don’t have to do this each as cities. And I solely believe that that’s a way forward. And it’s feedback we can give to the IASO as well, who has a save-on energy program for Ontario, that also has opportunities.

[3:39:36] So I welcome the opportunity to have more discussions about concierge, about encouraging people to consider options to save on their energy bills and to help to boost the local economy and further our conversation and our move towards electrification in the city. The speakers, go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. Yeah, I’m not gonna be supporting this partly for the reasons that I said that we’ve got this, you know, we’ve got this funding that comes from the federal government and it’s always hard to say no to money.

[3:40:20] But other cities are because they’re looking at what it’s costing them to get that money. And so I really think that we need to take a bigger view on some of these things and realize what it is that we’re funding when we say yes to this. This is 150 retrofit loans. Why does it cost $2 million even according to the table one? It’s $2 million to hand out 5 million in loans to 150 households.

[3:40:54] What exactly are we funding? Who are these agencies who are getting the money and what is it that they’re gonna do for the next four years with that money when many cities, the 150 loans goes really fast because there is an uptake for all the reasons that my colleague said. So if the loans do go in a few weeks or a few months, we’re gonna have city staff processing all of these loan payments in a very short period of time trying to get all that set up. And then these other agencies got $2 million because we said yes.

[3:41:30] What are they gonna be doing? I think it’s worth asking. Why does it cost? Because again, it’s tax payer money. Yes, it’s not ours. Yes, it’s not the property tax. But it’s came off people’s paychecks and we are facilitating the $2 million going to these agencies. I think it’s worth looking into who they are, what they’re doing, why this program is gonna take four years. The feasibility study that I was provided with has been created and done by one of these agencies.

[3:42:05] It was the Clean Air Partnership. This is a North American wide program. When you start looking at pace and when you start looking at these agencies, one of them is local. And they’ve been pretty big advocates for us funding all of this. So you can be sure that these agencies that are receiving this money are going to be trying to direct more money of taxpayers at every level to continue this. At a time when taxpayers are saying to us, “Whoa, it’s too much.” So I won’t be supporting this.

[3:42:48] Other speakers, go ahead, Councillor Frank. Thank you, just a couple of wrap up comments. I will be supporting this, as I mentioned before. I read the report that staff provided and actually provides a very thorough description of what the contractors will be doing over the next couple of years if this is approved. Appendix A outlines the roles and responsibilities of the contractor. Appendix B provides a work plan and payment schedule, which goes out from 2025 to 2030 with annual increments of what’s being paid at what point and what targets are being met. Appendix C has varied different scenarios for eligible homeowners.

[3:43:23] And then it continues on with a program design, page 40 until page 43. So if there’s any questions as to what the contractors will be doing, it’s in the report and it’s outlined. And again, this is providing tangible cost relief for families through reduced energy consumption. It’s investing our local economy. It’s leveraging external funding 3.5 to one. It’s addressing energy poverty to folks who don’t have enough money to be able to pay for these retrofits. So again, this is, in my opinion, a very strong economic case for the investment. And all of those questions that were asked can be answered by reading the report.

[3:44:00] Okay, any other speakers to the main motion? All right, seeing none, we’re gonna open that for voting. Opposing the vote, motion carries 12 to three. That’s our fair. Thank you, Mayor. I believe we have five items to go. Next is item eight.

[3:44:32] That’s the RFT 2025 dash, 041 bridging supports, housing stability services. I’ll put that on the floor. Yeah, and I think this was pulled for someone who got a conflict. So any speakers to this? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero with one more refusal. Mayor, please put item 11.

[3:45:10] That’s a municipal rental assistance program, allocation for Indigenous led housing support. So I’ll put that on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor. I look for any speakers. Go ahead. Thank you, worship. I’m just going to say thank you to Councilor Ferrera for referring the original motion a cycle ago so that more information could come forward from at LOSA. I also wanna thank the staff from at LOSA who reached out and answered the questions that I sent to them. It’s much appreciated and much more comfortable with where we’re going with this now.

[3:45:46] Okay, any other speakers? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Opposing the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. This item 12, I have a referral for this one. So I’d like to hand this over to my vice chair. Okay, Councilor McAllister, go ahead.

[3:46:21] Okay, put item 12 on the floor. Okay, item 12 is on the floor. Councilor Ferrera. Thank you, Mayor. I’m putting a referral on the floor for this one. I did speak to it committee, so I won’t make too many comments here. But I did have a late, a couple of meetings and a late night meeting with staff. Thank you, Mr. Felberg and the chair of Chelsea Green last night and we came to the conclusion that they’re requiring a little bit more time just to discuss the agreement and path forward for us. So this is why the referral is coming on the floor. So I’m hoping for your support. And I did submit that to the clerk so they should have that ready to go in Eastern.

[3:46:55] Okay, do you have it in front of you? ‘Cause it’s better to read out a referral so that the public can hear the referral too. Or if you don’t, I can read what you submitted. That the staff report dated July 14th, 2025 related to the update to the contribution agreement that Chelsea Green Community Homes be referred to a future meeting of the Community Protective Services Committee in order for civic administration to continue to work with Chelsea Green Community Home Society to refine the process and the number of units from the city’s wait list.

[3:47:37] Okay, good? I see, sorry, so I see a typo there. Instead of units form, it’s— Yeah, I already fixed it. Okay, thank you. Okay, don’t worry. I mean, ask the clerk to fix it, I didn’t fix it. So that’ll be updated. Is there a seconder though for your referral? Okay, there’s a seconder, okay. So the referrals on the floor, would you like to speak to it now? No, okay, any speakers to the referral then? Okay, then I’m gonna open the referral for voting. Opposing the vote, motion carries 15-0.

[3:48:24] Okay, so you’re going back to Councillor Ferriero, Councillor Ferriero, continue on. Thank you, I have two more to go. This is item 14, this is the request to review the school crossing guard program, I’ll put that on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor. I’ll look to this for speakers, that Deputy Roy Lewis. Thank you, so I’m just rising to let colleagues know, I’ll be voting no on this one. I appreciate the Councillor Frank brought it forward as a concern from her residents. I also heard Mr. McCrae’s response that the intersection was studied and it didn’t meet the warranted threshold.

[3:49:00] I’m also, if we’re gonna start putting more money into the crossing guard program, it’s not gonna stop at 200,000. It’s gonna be every school in the city is going to be coming forward with the same request for their Councillors. And I’m not going to add multipliers to that 200,000. I do think that we have a pretty robust traffic calming petition system. I think that we do our traffic studies fairly diligently. It is unfortunate that there are always people in that, what I think our traffic folks call the 15th percentile, who are the really aggressive, really high speed, reckless driving sorts of situations.

[3:49:42] I know on Hail Street, prior to our traffic calming going in, we had a traffic study done and there was an individual in the 15th percentile that was doing 100 kilometres an hour in a 40 zone. No amount of engineering, of regulations, of crossing guards, nothing like that. Somebody who’s gonna behave like that behind the wheel, you’re not gonna stop. And while crossing guards might create a sense of enhanced safety, we also know that there have been crossing guards who unfortunately have been hit by motor vehicles as well.

[3:50:20] So it doesn’t guarantee anyone’s safety. It perhaps creates a sense of safety. And I appreciate why the council brought it forward. I understand when you get resident pushes like this, that there’s a desire to react to them. So I never object to any council bringing something forward like that, but I just can’t support it. It’s gone through the traffic study process. It didn’t meet the warrant. And so I’m satisfied that our staff have done our due diligence on that.

[3:50:54] Councillor Trostan and then Councillor Plaza. Thank you very much to the chair. I am fully in support of this motion. I am grateful to Councillor Frank for bringing this forward at the exact same time that my residents in Old North were holding a community meeting tomorrow night about this. And we’re gonna be asking for many, many similar things. And I have to tell you in all due respect to the traffic department, which works very hard. They’re getting an increase in the number of these petitions. And I think that we do need to look at the warrant system.

[3:51:30] Because again, the warrant, and I’ve asked this in previous civic works committees as it was then known. The warrant commission, the warrant commission, the warrant process, you know what I mean? Does not preclude the relief being granted if the numbers are not there. There are merely suggestions. We’ve been through this. The residents feel, and I think legitimately so. ‘Cause at first I was skeptical about this too. It’s sort of like, yeah, $200,000 isn’t gonna go very far because each word’s gonna want two or three and there’s enough money for one.

[3:52:11] I get that. But I’m in support of this. Because I think I heard from the parents and the residents that were here that they have a very legitimate concern, not based on some sort of ideological, we have to stop cars from bothering the people in our neighborhood. But a very, very legitimate concern about their day-to-day experience in Old South, which is very similar to the day-to-day experience in many other neighborhoods in the city, that they need some relief.

[3:52:47] And I think the fact that this motion came forward as it did, when it did, adds to this overall discussion that we’re having in the city right now about how we are going to update or revamp or revisit the way we go about generating approvals for traffic requests. Ultimately, I hope that this leads to a much broader review of what is needed in Old South. What is needed in Old North?

[3:53:20] What’s needed in other neighborhoods? I feel a particular affinity to Old South here, not only because I like to go down there and walk around, but it’s the neighborhood, it’s the developed older neighborhood, should add oldies to this, it’s the developed older neighborhood that is right next to downtown. And we, in these grid older neighborhoods, we get the brunt of the cross-through traffic, of the cut-through traffic.

[3:53:55] And something has to be done about that. And putting out more police officers, or in this case, the traffic guard is going to help at least let drivers know that they’re being watched, we should do that. Now, we should also spend some money for safety to make sure that those traffic guard officers are not in harm’s way, which is going to be a whole nother discussion. But I’m fully in support of this. This is totally consistent with what I am hearing from my residents, and I hope counselors pass this.

[3:54:33] Thank you. Thank you. I don’t know if I should just rename my part of my word to old white, everything seems like the word old in it. Like, yes. So my established neighborhoods, I’m going to ask the clerks when it comes time to vote the A and B be called separate from C. I am interested in the conversations with staff that can go out and engage with the schools across the city. The majority of the concerns that I hear when I talk to the schools was just out with the traffic department, discussing one before school got out.

[3:55:10] And it tended to be lack of people doing proper stops, lack of people yielding an adequate time for the kids to cross, speeding, cut through traffic. And even to the point that some of the schools were just asking like, can someone just ticket the parents? ‘Cause they’re the ones doing this. They’re the ones stopping and no stopping zones. They’re the ones causing the slight lines. And in due enforcement, it’s the question of the walkability to schools, way finding sides, signs, kiss and ride. And inherently the design of some of these neighborhoods that just didn’t accommodate so many buses of the way these kids are coming and going from certain schools while filling them to allow others to have capacity room.

[3:55:52] I will admit myself that I was ticketed at my kid’s school last year in Old South, sorry about that Skyler. It was just trying to load hockey equipment in front of the school after one of the programs. You know what I did? The parents all talked about, oh my God, do you want this ticket cost me? And then we found out other places to park. Nothing like word of mouth from parents to help with better enforcement and compliance. I’ve been better since, thank you. So that is my information and reasons for supporting part C. My concern with part A and B is also that the budget process this fall, we will see the increased business case of $200,000 and then staff will bring a report.

[3:56:34] I just feel those are a little bit out of order of putting the money in and then doing a report. Thank you. Professor Roman. Thank you. And three, first I do appreciate calling these items separately. I’m generally supportive of reviewing the policy. I think the policy needs to consider things like large schools in my ward where, you know, schools are upwards of 800 students in some cases or more. You know, we need to look at whether or not one crossing guard for a school is sufficient or not and at which locations as kids are funneling in from different parts of the area.

[3:57:14] So generally supportive of looking at the policy in general, also how we’re accommodating new schools where there are no sidewalks and other interventions right now. I think there’s a lot more that we need to discuss. With part C, that civic administration be directed to engage on the review of standards of the policy. A lot of schools have active travel plans to schools and I’m just wondering how we might engage with the work that’s been done or is being done on active and safe travel plans to schools.

[3:57:58] I think that was a question. Thank you through your worship. I’m just receiving some information now. Yeah, I’m happy to continue and I think I know the answer to my own question. But I know having been involved in a lot of these discussions around active and safe planning to schools that the consideration of where the crossing guard is is part of the consideration for how we’ll get kids to school. So an important component. Right now, I hear almost during the school year on a weekly basis around the issues around drop off pickup, kids walking to school and making sure that our neighborhoods are walkable.

[3:58:44] So I do think that this is important. It’s timely, it’s something the community wants us to look at. However, I do think that the warrant associated with meeting the requirement also needs to be something that a school can have more input in because oftentimes when the warrant conversation happens it may not be or what you hear from parents is that it wasn’t the day or the time or around the same season even where we have a lot of the issues.

[3:59:17] So I do think that there’s valuable input from the community on where we go with this program. This comes down to community safety and I think there’s a lot more work we can do. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, your worship and just to follow up on it does come down to community safety. It is the number one issue that I hear in Ward 9 how we move around safely in our neighborhood. So I wanna thank the Councillor for bringing this forward. I will be supporting the motion. I have to, we need to look at all opportunities to create those safe places in our neighborhoods.

[4:00:00] As our culture changes as we see more cut through traffic, more speeding and most likely less enforcement, it really is up to the community to come together and keep our neighborhoods safe. As much as it is an old self issue and it’s coming from the old self, I think it’s an issue right throughout our city. So I have no problem supporting it. The 200,000, I see this is a business case going forward. There’s opportunities in that business case to have further conversations.

[4:00:36] So again, thank you to the Councillor. I’m gonna go and get the answer after the year that your question now, go ahead. Thank you through your worship. So we are an active participant in the active and safe routes to school program that is led by the health unit. So we will be able to engage on the safe travel plans through that group. Okay, I have myself on the list. So I’ll go to the deputy mayor, our chair to the deputy mayor. I’ll take the chair, go ahead Mayor Morgan. Yes, so, I mean, this motion very much reminds me of my eight years as a ward Councillor because I think concerns around schools is something that that ward Councillors hear a lot about.

[4:01:14] And echoing what Councillor Ramen said, I think I did like five or six active and safe routes to school initiatives in different schools in my ward. And that process is actually incredibly important for organizing the different tools that we have at our disposal for actually supporting schools. So for those who don’t know an active and safe routes to school, it brings together the health unit, parents council, the administration of the school, the London police service, our traffic and division. They come together, they talk about it. They actually do a walkabout around the school.

[4:01:48] They look at where the problem issues are. In some cases, that might mean putting in speed humps. It might mean active and selective enforcement from the London police services or bylaw if a parking is the issue. It might include, and always include, significant communications with parents through the school to let them know, as Councillor Ploza described, often it’s the people dropping the kids off the school who are creating the congestion in some of the unsafe conditions. And all of those things are organized into a plan that deploys the right solution for the right school for the actual issues they’re facing.

[4:02:21] I agree to me, I understand why this motion is before us, but it does feel a little bit backwards to me in that we’re gonna put a business case together, but there’s a process for organizing this. Maybe a school crossing guard isn’t the best solution to some of these challenges. Maybe it is the other types of infrastructure. In some cases, we actually solved a bunch of problems by painting different lines on the road that kind of compressed the length of the road so the parents would stop turning left into what was the kisser ride at the time and would go the other way. Simply lines on a road actually made a difference, right? So we’ve tried a whole bunch of different things and there’s a lot of experience through those programs in what works, but I think I can’t remember which Councillor said it in one of the main Councillor Ploza.

[4:03:01] It feels a little bit out of order to me to say, we’re gonna put a business case in to the multi-year budget this year, and then we’re gonna do all this engagement with schools and review the policy and maybe we might make some changes. To me, I think a more holistic perspective is important because there are multiple solutions to the challenges around schools from an active and safe school program and I actually really quite like the program and it actually brings a whole bunch of partners together. People have concerns and it puts the onus on all of those partners, not just the municipality, but the school has a role to play.

[4:03:33] The parents have a role to play. The municipality from an enforcement and infrastructure perspective has a role to play and the health unit has a role to play as well. So I know the motion’s gonna be divided out. I’ll likely support some pieces of it, but I just wanted to say I really understand why Councillors would bring this sort of thing forward, but we have to be very comprehensive about these things on a school-by-school basis because it isn’t just a one solution across the city. Every school is designed in different neighbourhoods, everyone has different pressures, and even within that school, they might have multiple different pressure points that requires addressing and those can work in collaboration with each other.

[4:04:11] Thank you, Mayor Morgan. I’ll return the chair to you, noting we have Councillor Stevenson on the speaker’s list. Go to Councillor Stevenson next. I just wanted to quickly say, I appreciate the conversation around this because it is a real issue in a lot of neighbourhoods, the traffic calming and the safety of students getting to school. So I appreciate it. I, too, I’m gonna support the review and not the funding just yet, although I’m sure there’ll be a funding request at some point, but I’m happy to have this conversation today, so thanks. I don’t have any other speakers.

[4:04:44] I’m just gonna let you know, we’re gonna, just based on the conversation, deal with all three parts separately, and the it being noted piece will be attached to C, just so people know, okay? And if we’re ready, I can actually, yeah, okay, we’re gonna start then, we’ll start with A. So everybody, just make sure you’re referring to, this is the budget business case component of the motion. Opposing the vote, motion fails five to ten.

[4:05:21] Okay, and then we’ll move to B, which is the review of the crossing guard policy and report back to a future meeting, including but not limited to a couple of things. Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 13-2.

[4:05:56] And part C with the it being noted, which is directed to engage on the review of the standards with the school guard crossing program with school boards, I think. Sorry, we opened that a little quick for me to read it, but I think you know what it is. Councilor Cote, noted, thank you, closing the vote, motion carries 14-1.

[4:06:46] Thank you, Mayor. That leaves me with the last item that’s item 15. That’s the funding request for the Hamilton Road BIA in the old East Village BIA, I’ll put that one on the floor. Right, that’s on the floor. I’ll look to speakers, Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you, I have an amendment that I just forwarded to the clerk. It says that the motion be amended to add a new part B that reads as follows.

[4:07:22] B, the downtown London BIA be requested to provide a list of expenditures from their portion of the COVID-19 relief funding. Right, is there a seconder for that? Okay, we’ve got multiple seconders, but I’ll pick Deputy Mary Lewis as the seconder. All right, that’s on the floor. Thank you, the reason why I put this on here is if we’re going to look at, take a closer look at the funding that was spent for the core area, then it seems only fair to look at all three and not just look at two of them.

[4:08:01] I realize that downtown London’s not asking for any more money at this time, but we did approve, I think, 300,000 without any details, not that long ago in the budget. And it was 1.2 million, I believe, that was spent in the year downtown. So I’m asking for support of this motion so that we’re going to do this equally. If we’re going to look at it and review and talk about where the money’s going that we’re doing it with all three BIA’s. I also just want to say in advance that I will be encouraging my colleagues to vote no to the entire motion when it comes forward.

[4:08:41] And then what I’d like to do is put on the floor the emotion that went to community and protective services. So I just want to say that, but right here, I’m asking for support to get the analysis from all three. Point of order, ma’am. Yes. That COVID-19 relief funding, which has been fully expensed by the downtown BIA is a matter of a public record already. It has been provided. Yeah.

[4:09:19] So understood, it should probably be an easier, I don’t think that precludes us from asking for it again, it’s probably a pretty quick and easy thing to do. If it’s already available, it’ll just be, I think the point the council is making is do it for all three, which I don’t think is contrary to the direction and I don’t think warrants a point of order not to do it. Just ‘cause it’s easy doesn’t mean it’s not something we can ask. Okay, go ahead. Can I speak to that? You can get on the speaker’s list. And I think I don’t have anybody, so you can go now. Okay, so the motion that we’re getting, tying it back and forth, ‘cause it’s a little tit for tap for me, to be honest, the reason I was asking for transparency at this council, which this council asked for transparency all the time, was because I was having trouble reconciling the fact that the COVID-19 relief funding that was provided in 2023 for a grant was monies that are still within the account of the BIA.

[4:10:17] And the BIA is requesting additional funding to pay for expenses that have already been expensed. This is a reimbursement that they’re asking for. The money that came from the 2023 grant was money that was specifically provided to help offset the costs for our ongoing homelessness crisis. In the motion that I received from the BIA had expenses that was for our ongoing homelessness crisis. So my question is, is why does the BIA not use money that’s already in their accounts that we’ve already approved for those expenses that have already been incurred?

[4:10:55] Why is the BIA asking for additional funds when specifically the timeframe that those expenses— Yes, point of order, go ahead. Sorry, I’m not trying to derail the councilors, but if we could clarify which BIA we’re talking about ‘cause BIA is being used too broadly, so just specify please. Yeah, just be specific about the BIA’s you’re talking. Very good point, thank you for bringing that up. I’m talking about the old East Village BIA in that request because the Hamilton Road BIA is asking for funding, additional funding for 2026. That’s the year, after this year, and they’re asking to continue their security services agreement with the RBL BIA.

[4:11:35] They did provide the fully expensed out and the projected costs just like that when I asked for them. When I asked for this transparency from the old East Village BIA, I get a letter back that gives me a fog of I don’t even know how to classify it. And it really actually hurts my confidence even more. So it’s a simple request of transparency that I’m asking for at this council. Okay, so you’re done your comments. You can’t call a point of privilege on behalf of another organization.

[4:12:07] You can do it for yourself though. For me. - Okay. I’m gonna call a point of privilege that we, this doesn’t need to be like this. And making comments about your confidence being shaken, I think is a disservice to the staff who oversee this, to the BIA and to the counselor that sits on that. Privilege? Okay, no, one at a time, all right? So let, give me a sec, okay. So there’s a point of personal privilege here.

[4:13:12] And I’m gonna make a few comments on it. So I agree with the counselor who’s raised the point of personal privilege that language is used when we are suspicious or say, allude to, and it’s not that you said these exact words, but allude to something nefarious happening or confidence is shaken. And I will say too, that despite the fact this is a point of personal privilege called by the counselor.

[4:13:45] The counselor is called the point of personal privilege. I feel some members of counselor think that that counselor has done the same thing. And I think there are multiple people in this room who are perhaps boarded on that. So this is a moment where I’m going to sustain the point of personal privilege. I’m gonna ask the counselor to retract his comments, but I’m actually gonna ask all counselors, every single one in this room, to assume that staff of the corporation and staff of the BIA’s and public service members are doing things because they believe it is the right thing to do, are doing things authentically, appropriately, with professionalism and training.

[4:14:27] And we can disagree with some of those decisions, but we do not have to, or should we, move down the path of disparaging people who have decided to either volunteer or have careers or devote their professional lives to serving the public in the city in multiple ways. So I think this is a good moment for counsel in these multiple points of personal privilege that we can be better and we can do better on this point. We can disagree and not have to go down these paths. We can use language that is not charged and leads into good, robust public discussion that leads us away from multiple points of personal privilege being called, which we’ve had a lot of this term, and down a path where we can be a little more respectful to each other.

[4:15:14] So I will ask the counselor to phrase things differently, and I’ll ask all of counselor to consider these, all of counsel to consider these thoughts moving forward. Counselor. To rephrase the point of privilege? No, to just rephrase the way that you’re referring to the BIA as confident, shaken, or any sort of suspicion. The BIA may have responded in a way you didn’t like, but we’re not gonna assume that’s for nefarious reasons, or even allude to that in any sort of way. Not again that you said those words, but this is why the points of personal privilege are being called, and I’m admitting that it’s not just one called on you, but there’s been multiple times this term, we will, I and all other committee chairs will be expected to enforce this a little more.

[4:15:58] I appreciate that. So I am just trying to do my job, and I have questions that I didn’t, I wasn’t satisfied with some of the answers, which is why I requested the 2020, or the grant monies, and what’s earmarked for the remaining funds. That’s basically what it is. I got a letter in the report that seems to say no. He’s responding to the point of personal privilege or rephrasing things, so he’s doing what I’ve asked him to do. So yeah, so that’s what it is. I’m just asking for this small little tidbit of transparency, it’s a very easy item to request.

[4:16:36] The Hamilton BAA got it around within a day, so that would be my point of personal privilege. Well, it’s not a point of personal privilege, it’s, I’m asking you guys to respond. So we’re just not gonna use language like confident shake and those sorts of things. You’ve got a letter back, you have more questions, you put a motion on the floor, you’ve explained why, and we’re using language that is respectful of the debate in this chamber, okay. So I’m assuming all the points of personal privilege are dealt with with that, and we can continue with the discussion of which there is a, we’re on the amendment to add the addition of the downtown BAA right now, okay?

[4:17:14] All right, so other speakers to that. Oh, yes, sorry, Councillor Layman, I had you on my last, go ahead. Thank you, Chair. Just saw the amendment be recusing myself as I’m a member of the downtown London BAA. Okay, that’s noted, thank you for that. Councillor Trostoff, go ahead. I’ll save my comments on the other two BAA’s until the main motion, but I’m not in favor of this amendment. I don’t think we need to bring yet a third BIA into this discussion, which in my view is becoming much more complicated than it needs to be.

[4:17:56] I can say how I would like to resolve this matter, but it’s beyond the scope of this amendment. So let’s vote this amendment down and get on with the discussion, ‘cause I think there are other things on the agenda that are really big issues. So I think I’m done. So the amendments on the floor, Councillor Prabble, go ahead. Thank you, Councillor Trostoff. Councillor Trostoff, can you please give up your mic? Thank you, and I was just gonna talk to the main motion, but now with this, I just wanna clarify one thing, because what we passed or what we talked about at the meeting last week for the remaining balance of the COVID-19 relief.

[4:18:41] So for the remaining balance, it’s for the future spending, and what’s in front of us, to me, it doesn’t sound like a remaining balance, it sounds to me more like what has been currently spent. So I just wanna clarify what we are actually voting, what we are voting for. I would certainly, if I do think that we should be absolutely fair to all BIA, so I would support this, but again, what’s in front of me, I don’t think it’s the same thing. So I would just like a clarification on that, thank you. Let’s go back to the, Councillor, is your intent to align it exactly as the other BIAs are, because I would agree with Councillor Pribble that it is a little bit different?

[4:19:28] It’s asking for a list of expenditures going back, so you either want to align that for all the BIAs to do that, or you want to add the downtown BIA, maybe just in the list of the BIAs that are talking about the remaining balances. I just wanna add back to your intent, because there’s no future money to report for the downtown BIA. So if we’re looking at where the COVID-19 funding’s going, it’s in the past for downtown London, and in the future for the OEV. Yeah, and I guess, just to clarify, so would you like the other BIA to not only do future, but any past ones as well?

[4:20:07] No, the amendment is just for the downtown London. Okay, that’s the answer. It may be slightly different, but it’s not fundamentally contrary, so the amendment can stand. Okay, other speakers to the amendment. Okay, we’ll open the amendment for voting. Opposed in the vote.

[4:20:46] Motion carries, eight to six, with one recusal. Okay, so I need a mover for the as amended motion. Councillor Ferro will move it. The seconder for the as amended motion. Thank you, Councillor Cudi, you appreciate it. Okay, so now we have the as amended motion on the floor. I’ll look for speakers of the as amended motion. Councillor Preble, go ahead. Thank you, so last week I just supported this motion based on the assumption that this money was supposed to be spent until the end of this year. And I think that organization like this, if you are looking at less than half a year, the organizations and the business organization should let know where the money is going.

[4:21:25] I did receive a confirmation from both BIA and our staff, that actually the timeline is still end of 2026. And if I look at kind of how the world is changing, economy is changing so promptly, so quickly. So I will not be, I will be voting against this, because again, for now to ask detailed funding, spending for next 18 months, I don’t think that’s reasonable. Under my assumption that it was half a year, I was absolutely supporting it based on 18 months. I will not be, and I just wanna clarify one thing that I did receive a few calls from some businesses and residents.

[4:22:03] This money, even though we call it COVID money, this from 2023, some individuals thought that it was still part of the LCR and money, which again, this is not the LCR and money from early COVID times. So I just wanna clarify this, but going back to it, I supported it, I will not be based on the timeline, and now asking BIA where they’ll be spending the money for following 18 months in 10, 12, 14 months, the priorities might be completely different than currently. So I’ll be voting against this, thank you. Councillor Layman.

[4:22:38] Thank you now, the main motion includes the amendment, explicitly referencing downtown London BIA. As I’m a member, I will recruit myself for that as well. Okay, thank you, that’s noted. I’ll go to Councillor Ferra. Thank you, Mayor. I do believe that there are some other BIA’s that received the funding as well, that I’m not gonna mention them to be brought on this list. It just makes me a little hesitant. However, this information for the downtown BIA has already been provided, so that’s not an issue for me. I would say that as Councillors here, we have a fiduciary responsibility for all the taxpayers of the city on how we spend their money.

[4:23:10] They expect us to spend their money and ask all the right questions and really make sure that that money is actually required. My questions of the fact that the money is in the account for the old East Village BIA, these expenses overlap with the exact same timeframe of the COVID-19 relief funding, and these expenses have already been incurred. But my question of why are we not using the money we’ve already provided for expenses exactly for the ask, and why is that money not being used to pay for the expenses incurred? Why is there not a new additional ask coming forward for other items that may be for the future?

[4:23:47] I’m not saying no to this money. I’m just saying I have some questions and I’m looking for the answers. So I’m gonna support this motion as it is. I do believe there should be other BIAs involved, but I’m not gonna go there just to keep things tight. But I do see that this motion is a little more politicking than I’d like to see. I shouldn’t see anything. I just want to roll up my sleeves, get to work, have my questions answered so I know and I have the confidence that I’m just approving funds in the right areas where they’re needed. So I am gonna support this because I know we’ve already put this public information out, but I do want us to all know that we need to practice that fiduciary responsibility.

[4:24:25] We need that transparency. This is a question that hasn’t been answered. So that’s why that motion was brought forward. Once I get that question answered, and I get that breakdown for the earmarked funds, and I’m satisfied, which I’m sure I will be, you’ll see me supported. I’m Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. And through you, I am rising to say I’m gonna vote against this motion ‘cause I’m prepared to entertain an alternate motion to approve the funding today.

[4:25:04] I’ve met with Ms. Louis Stroh and Mr. Morrison, along with the Ward Councillors, along with Ms. Mayhav from my BIA and in the Argyle BIA. I understand why they’re looking for this extension to the end of the multi-year budget cycle. I think that I’ve said this before. At some point, we have to get the BIA’s to a point where they’re self-sustaining. However, I recognize and I will say that the Argyle BIA is perhaps a little bit further ahead in being self-sustaining.

[4:25:42] And that’s why you don’t see an ask from that. Because we’re using the levy that we have. We’ve had a levy increase. We are working with staff on a potential boundary expansion in the future. But I know that both the OEV BIA and the Hamilton Road BIA are looking at the same things. An expansion to include 100 Kellogg area in the OEV BIA, which I think is very timely, considering the redevelopment proposals that we’re seeing coming up in the area. The Hamilton Road BIA.

[4:26:17] Again, I know that they’re talking about a levy increase. I know that they’re talking about going east of Highbury and capturing another commercial plaza there. They’re doing what they need to do. There are just a couple steps behind where the Argyle BIA is. And that’s OK. They’ve had other challenges. I’ve stood here before and said, I recognize the OEV and the Hamilton Road BIA have more significant challenges in some areas than the Argyle BIA does. That’s still true today. And they say that’s why we’ve been able to get a little bit further ahead than where the other two BIA’s are to put ourselves in a position where we don’t have to ask for the funding.

[4:26:54] But this goes back to a debate earlier in this meeting where I supported the home retrofit funding. And Council Frank talked about the CIPs that we offer and the development charges waivers to support businesses. And to me, this is another one of those where we’re making, in this case, a very small investment to help our BIA’s as they continue to work through the problems that they’re facing in those areas and address the immediate needs of those business owners to keep them afloat.

[4:27:31] As we continue to see improvements and the rollout of the police modernization and the hiring and have more response in that way, that will have an impact as well. As we see some new housing come into the areas, that will have an impact as well, provided in customer base for folks, provides more community security. They just need a little bit more runway. I’ve talked to both BIA’s. I’m okay with where they are right now. I wish they didn’t have to be back asking for money, but I recognize why they are.

[4:28:04] And so I’m gonna vote no to this motion and also support an alternate motion to approve the funding today. I don’t need to hold this up for another cycle. I think they are acting in good faith with some pretty significant challenges that they’re facing day to day. So I’m willing to try and help them get through to the end of the budget cycle. I have Councillor McAllister, Stevenson, and Raman so far. Thank you and for the mayor, at the end of the day, I mean, my intention was this.

[4:28:39] And thank you for the Zippy mayor for bringing this up. But I wanted to bring folks together. The BIA’s are experiencing similar things. And there’s no intention to exclude Hyde Park downtown. We just had a lot of similar issues when we had our conversations. And these were things that come up regularly. So really, I’m trying to bring people together at the end of the day. We have challenges in our respective areas, but I do think the money has been used wisely. Very thankful to my BIA in terms of their turnaround to get those numbers to committee.

[4:29:13] I know there is a discussion at committee about getting those numbers and quick turnaround on them ‘cause they wanted to provide that information. And same with OAV. I think being able to have these conversations, nobody’s trying to hide anything. We’re being very transparent in terms of what we’ve used it to date. Being very appreciative in terms of the contract we had with ARGAL. That was a joint security contract that we’ve been running for the last few years. We also, through that, have cleaning services as well. We’ve partnered with CMHA Coffee House, which has been very successful in terms of the community cleanups we do.

[4:29:46] So I think the money is being used wisely. These are things that the community has asked for. We responded to them, recognizing again, the issues with the police and trying to give them what they’ve requested in terms of building up their capacity, but with what we’re experiencing right now. And the need for the funds to continue at least to the end of 2026 for us. So that’s where Hamilton Road’s coming from. Again, supportive of old East in terms of what they’ve experienced. There’s a lot of added costs to these areas. We’re doing our best in terms of providing these services, keeping the businesses, and not just the businesses, but as OAV has said, there’s nonprofits as well who are involved.

[4:30:27] So trying to keep the area in general clean is a big part of what BIA’s are tasked with nowadays. The mandate has evolved. We were grateful that Ontario, the OBIA, recognized our efforts. And it’s a conversation of the provincial level that’s happening in terms of what BIA’s are facing, how they’ve evolved over time, and the realities that they’re facing right now, and what we have to provide. As the deputy mayor also said, we are in the process in terms of looking at expansions, increasing our levy, just recognizing where we were in the queue.

[4:31:03] Hyde Park had a big ask, so we were patient, and we said, okay, we’ll wait until that’s kind of dealt with. Mr. McCauley’s been very good in terms of helping us along with that process, and so you’ll see something in the next few months from Hamilton Road in that regard. Because as the deputy mayor said, we do want to get to a self-sustaining model, and that is our end goal is these are things we recognize have value to the business community in the area, and we want to support them. But over the long term, these are things that we would like to be able to provide through our own levy and business supports.

[4:31:36] So appreciate everything that’s being said. I also didn’t support the referral, ‘cause I knew these are numbers and things that we can have conversations offline. I knew this would be kind of an easy ask, but I would like to defeat this, and just put the original back on the floor, ‘cause that’s how we voted a committee. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, and that is my request too that we vote this down, and then bring forward the motion that was done at committee. This is a really simple little ask. It is one half of the Argyle Hamilton Road needing security for a little bit longer.

[4:32:12] We all, I think, understand why. And the oldest village BIA isn’t asking for additional funding for the COVID-19 relief money. They’re simply saying, “Hey, we spent money “on non-member needs, non-members that are “of huge importance and value to the city, “the National Historic Site of Banting House, “Aolian Hall, Palace Theater.” These are important, important assets to our city that happen to fall within a business BIA, of whom the BIA has been funding their broken windows and things you don’t even wanna talk about.

[4:32:56] And so it’s, again, a very small, reasonable ask, 30,000 in reimbursement so that the property tax paying, levy paying members of the BIA, who are really, really struggling in that area, don’t have to be doing that from their money. So it’s an honoring thing. So by voting this down, we’d be able to bring forward the original motion. It’s $30,000 and $60,000. I don’t think as much as I always want fiduciary and wanna see, this isn’t the place for this. We have a BIA, it’s part of our city.

[4:33:31] You know what I mean? It’s a board of this city. This isn’t the place to, I don’t think, scrutinize for 30,000. But Councilor Ronan. Thank you and through you. So I’m really struggling with what’s in front of us today for a number of reasons. One, I wholly support our BIAs and their, the work they’re doing to enhance business and development in our community. The fact that they’re working with small businesses, the engine of our city to be able to bring much needed resources, services, jobs, et cetera, to our community is all very good and needed and necessary.

[4:34:16] My challenge is, one, this money is being asked for out of the community investment reserve fund, which I’m not quite clear as to why BIAs are now going into the community economic, the community investment reserve fund or requesting funds from that fund. To me, they are wholly aligned with economic development and therefore, if they’re looking for money from a reserve fund, it should be coming from economic development. And then the goals of which they’re tying back to why they need this funding should be, in my opinion, also coming from an economic lens because that’s where their mandate is, is to be an economic driver.

[4:34:56] When we start talking about the Community Investment Reserve Fund, which is a dwindling fund to begin with, we should really be looking to other opportunities from community organizations to be accessing those dollars and leveraging those funds that are there. So that’s one of my concerns. The initiative that the Hamilton BIA is undertaking with private security services, I’ve heard a lot about this being backstopping for policing, for lack of policing in our city right now, and I personally am not supportive of private security backstopping policing.

[4:35:34] I understand how they can support each other, but at the same time, I think that, I see those things as very different. I think joint work that’s being done on private securities is valuable for the community, but I think it’s to say that, at some point, this service will stop and will have policing, I think, isn’t a fair assumption for the community to think that one can backstop the other. I have requests from businesses in my ward for private security as well, and some fall within the BIA and some fall outside the BIA, and it’s not something that our BIA provides, and it’s not something that we’re providing across the city to other businesses.

[4:36:16] I’ve heard from businesses in my ward, I’ve heard from businesses in South London that have experienced rising increase in break-ins, windows smashed, et cetera, but they don’t have a BIA to go to for support. So we’re in one way incentivizing areas that have BIAs, but we’re using investment funds that, in my opinion, should be going to community organizations, but even if we were to be using economic development business funds, reserve funds, shouldn’t that money be available to all businesses then to access, not just those that are aligned with BIAs?

[4:36:55] So I’m personally not going to support an increase at this time, I do value the work that they’re doing, I appreciate the work that the oldies village is BIAs doing to support national historic sites and Banting House and others, but at the same time, I think that the community economic reserve fund is not the place to do it as well. Other speakers, okay, so this is, no, you have not, Councillor Trostab.

[4:37:32] Thank you, through the chair. Let me start by saying where I’m going with this and I could figure out what’s on the table and I’m inclined to wanna vote this down and then have that other motion come up and separate it between the two BIAs, which I think I’d be able to do. At this point, I am prepared to reimburse, reimburse the oldies village BIA for expenses that they’ve incurred with respect to these other non-members, ‘cause I think that’s very different than asking for a prospective funding application as justified as it may be for things that, for security, back dropping the police if you wanna look at that way.

[4:38:21] So where I wanna go with this is, I voted against, see, I voted against the amendment, I’ll be voting against what’s on the floor and I would like to hear the next motion that comes up in terms of going back to where the committee was. This is getting pretty complicated and it’s more complicated than it needs to be. But yeah, that’s where I am, thank you. Okay, that exhaustive speaker’s list. So what we have is the amended motion on the floor, which is the committee’s original motion plus the part about the downtown BIA and open that for voting.

[4:39:20] Opposed on the vote, motion fails, three to 11 with one recu— Okay, so there’s no, yeah, go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. I’d like to move the motion that was brought to community and protective services. I’m gonna read it out because people on the gallery and at home probably don’t know what it says. The following actions be taken with respect to the communication from Councillor H. McAllister dated July 7th, 2025 with respect to funding requests for the Hamilton OPI and the old East Village BIAA.

[4:39:58] And again, for those who wanna divide it, you can divide it into an A and a B if you’d like. A civic administration be directed to allocate one-time funding of 62,500 from the Community Investment Reserve onto the Hamilton Road BIA to allow them to continue their joint private security service contract with the Argyle BIA for 2026 and B civic administration be directed to immediately allocate one-time funding of 34,179 dollars and 62 cents from the Community Investment Reserve fund to the old East Village BIAA to support private property cleanups, graffiti removal and enhanced safety and security measures.

[4:40:34] Good, okay, so look for a seconder for that. Seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Okay, we can have a discussion on that. Okay, Councillor Ferrera. Thank you, Mayor. This will be my last comment on this one. To say that this is not the place to seek transparency, I would say everywhere, every place, especially when we spend taxpayer funds is the place to seek transparency. I understand this money is being reimbursed for the old East Village BIAA for non-members. But I don’t think that makes a difference because there was no requirements for stipulations within that money and that grant money, whether it was members or non-members.

[4:41:12] My questions has still not been answered. Why were we not using the COVID-19 relief funding? Why are we not using the monies that’s in the coffers right now to pay for that? Why are we giving additional funds when we have already provided funds for those expenses? That has not been answered to me. So, this has definitely gone astray and it’s a little complicated, but I’m gonna ask to split up the votes because I was able to get the information from the Hamilton Road BIAA. I did request meetings with both BIAAs after the committee. I was able to get one with Hamilton Road.

[4:41:45] I was not able to get one with the old East Village BIAA questions, more questions that have not been answered. I really think that we should ask these questions ‘cause I have a valid question and it has not been answered. I hear that there’s confidence where the money’s going and you, other members of this council, has met with the BIAA, but I haven’t. I haven’t been able to get that privilege. So, that’s why I’m asking for this on the record. If I could get it offline, I would, but I can’t. So, just seeking out that, where are these monies going? And seeking out what expenses are coming up and looking at the letter that we got from the old East Village BIA, there’s two items that are super secret that we can’t know about.

[4:42:28] I just really think that we need to understand what’s going on. We have to be confident with the monies that we disperse out and we haven’t had those questions answered. I haven’t heard that question answered at all. So, I’m not gonna be voting for that part. If I got that information, I would, but I didn’t. So, I’m baffled, I’m just a little awestruck on the fact that we weren’t able to get that transparency, a very simple request. Okay, and I’m gonna ask, we’re not gonna try to use words like super secret or things like that.

[4:43:04] So, thanks for drawing that. Okay, good, I see the nod. Okay, other speakers, other speakers to this. Go ahead, Councilor McAllister. Thank you and through you. I just wanted to point out some points of clarification in terms of what the Councilor Raman said. I just want to provide some more clarity. I know I refer to it as the security program, but they kind of bundled things in, and I brought this over to RPA meetings a number of times, but it is a unique program, especially for us, and I think this kind of applies to OEV as well, because we have the social services.

[4:43:42] So, I don’t deny that probably other parts of the city, other individual businesses might be asking for this, but what we’ve tried to do is, with at least with ours, is bundle it. So, it’s security, but it’s also enhanced cleaning as well. So, we partnered with the CMHA Coffee House, and so they are actually doing the cleaning services for us, because what we found with having the services provided, that it does create more unique issues in terms of our respective areas, as you’ve heard OEV with the services there as well. It does result in a lot of added cleaning services that you would not necessarily see in other parts of the city.

[4:44:20] So, that’s a unique challenge, which, and a downtown recognizing that’s also a challenge as well, but I just wanted to call that out, ‘cause that is bundled in with this. I don’t love the name associated with it, but I did want to say that that is part of it as well. Looking for your support for this funding, we are just asking for 2026, just to give us a little more runway with respect to the fund it came from. This is always the go-to one, I think, for discretionary funding for council, recognizing agree with you in terms of economic reserve as well, but this is one-time funding we’re just asking for.

[4:44:55] I still think it has a community impact, especially for our respective areas. I would just like to once again say, we were very grateful for the funding in the first place. I think all of our respective BIAs have used the money responsibly, and we really look for your support to continue this service, and we will be bringing forward our additions in terms of levy and boundary expansions as well. So, appreciate the discussion. I think we got a bit off track here today, but I just want to end by saying, I really appreciate the BIA is coming together. I think this was a great example of, you know, we might have differing opinions, but at the end of the day, we’re all trying to work to do what’s best for our award.

[4:45:34] Thank you. Other speakers, go ahead, Deputy Roy Lewis. Thank you, worship, probably really brief. I don’t really need to repeat everything. Councilor McAllister just said, I’ll just add that for Argyle, part of this program has involved partnering with YOU and sort of a mini expansion of their Clean Streets program that is enacted downtown. It’s a much smaller version out in Argyle, but nonetheless, we have been able to engage some youth who are actually, you know, sometimes housed at the youth shelter on Clark Road, and so we’re providing them an opportunity to get a little bit of employment experience through this program, working with the staff member whose job it is to run this program, as well, it’s proactive work too.

[4:46:22] It’s not just responding to concerns, but it’s reaching to businesses, talking to them about septeds and things that they can do to improve their employees, security, the physical plant of their business, so that it’s a safer environment moving forward. And actually a very good liaison with the London Police Service as well, so there’s that liaison piece that Mr. McGlown, who’s the person who’s working for both the Hamilton Road and the Argyle BIA does, and has a direct link to the core units at LPS to discuss those sorts of issues that are returning in the community on a repeat basis.

[4:47:03] So I would agree with what’s been said about, you know, it’s described as the security program. It’s definitely more than that. Other speakers, go ahead, Councillor Provost. I think I just want to make a statement or comment on what was said in terms of the transparency and accountability, and in terms of all these village BIA, the motion that we have defeated, which we have passed at our standing committee meeting last week, it’s at remaining amounts.

[4:47:38] And all these village, they were very transparent in terms of saying, based on the 18 months still remaining, we don’t know where the priorities will be. So I don’t see in terms of currently, I have no issue with accountability transparency. Next year, will I be asking, and will I have a meeting with the executive director? Absolutely, I will. And I will be asking him, if we are here one year from now, I will ask him, what’s on the books for next four, five months? Or at the end, what was it spent for? But currently, I really don’t see an issue with accountability, transparency, because the motion clearly stated remaining balance.

[4:48:18] It doesn’t say what was spent, it’s at remaining balance. So based on that, I will certainly support this, and I’m good with it, thank you. Point of order, Councilor Trossam. Yes, if the intention was to go back to where we were at the committee, then part B should say reimbursement for, ‘cause that’s what we added at the committee. And this doesn’t catch up with that. We don’t have to go back to committee, it can be similar to what happened at the committee, so you would like it to say that?

[4:48:54] Okay, well, is that what? All right, so is everybody have consensus? Like, I don’t have to amend the, no, we don’t have consensus to say, we’re good, okay. So the nod is like, I’m just not dealing with it, okay. Just do what you want, that’s what I’m getting from people. We’ll change the language, it’ll say reimburse. Okay, okay, I don’t have any other speakers. Councilor Stevenson. Okay, thanks, I’m not gonna reply to some of the comments by my colleague.

[4:49:30] This is a simple, super simple request for a reimbursement of expenses that the BIA did on behalf of Londoners for institutions of value. National Historic Site, Palace Theater, 50 years of theater in our city, Aolian Hall. I wanna thank colleagues for voting the previous one down, and I’ll ask for your support on this one. I’m gonna be supporting both, because there is a reality in the Hamilton Road and the Old East Village BIA that is different, it is unique from others.

[4:50:15] So I will be supporting the Hamilton Road Ask as well. There’s some bigger issues to look at, but in this case, I really, I’m gonna end up talking about it, so I’m not going to. This is a simple ask, I’m asking for your support on behalf of the area that I represent, that this is a very small dollar. This isn’t something we need to ask people to show receipts for.

[4:50:47] There’s nothing secret about it. The statements are all audited and publicly available. The minutes to the BIA are all available. So anybody who has details can do them. There was some reference to not being able to connect with the BIA. And that can happen for all kinds of different reasons in July, so I don’t think there should be anything untoward mentioned around that. And I just look forward to council’s support on this and being done with it and not having to bring it forward to another committee. Okay, so B now reads, the civic administration would be directed to immediately reimburse the Old East Village BIA, $34,179.60 from the community investment reserve fund for previously expended private property, cleanups, graffiti removal, and enhance safety and security measures.

[4:51:38] Okay, yeah, I know it might not be exactly as committee, we don’t have the committee in front of us, so we just got it close. Okay, all right. Okay, so any other speakers on this? Go ahead, we spoke to the main, sorry, the new main, you spoke to that one too, yeah.

[4:52:15] Other speakers who haven’t spoke yet. You spoke to the as amended and then you called the point of order, so no, you haven’t. But you don’t have to if you don’t want to, it’s up to you. It’s very brief, it’s just to clarify the very legitimate question that Council Raman made in terms of which fund should it come from. So I’m wondering if finance staff would like to give an opinion as to which of these two funds is most appropriate?

[4:52:54] I have no answer. Sure, yeah, so I’ll go to the deputy city manager. Thank you, through the chair. Essentially it’s up to council which source you wish to ultimately choose from. The bylaw that governs the community investment reserve fund is at the will of council to determine exactly what projects you wish to put forward. The economic development reserve fund is a little bit more stringent, but there certainly could be a case made to put forward funding from that if council wishes. We have Mr. Murray on the line if we want to dig into exactly what the bylaw says, ‘cause I’m sure he has that available, but certainly I believe either would be unacceptable.

[4:53:35] The balance in the economic development reserve fund is approximately $67.5 million. The balance in the community investment reserve fund is a little less at $1.5 million approximately. So certainly it’s up to council to determine which one you’d like to select from. Sure, that’s the answer. Good, any other speakers to this? Okay, so we have the new motion on the floor. Some people wanted it divided. Yes, okay, I see nods. Okay, so what we’re gonna do is A with the Ip being noted and then B, right?

[4:54:10] Okay, so first thing up, A with the Ip being noted, which is the Hamilton Road BIA one and the noted about the delegations. We’ll open that for voting. Who’s in the vote? Motion carries 12 to three. Okay, and we’ll do B now. We’ll open that for voting.

[4:55:00] Close in the vote, motion carries 12 to three. I’d share. That concludes the 11th report at the Community and Protective Services Committee. And I think you’ve been standing since about 130, so thanks for presenting that report. Point of order. Yes. Wondering if procedurally it’s still in order to do a change of order at this point. I believe the people in the gallery who’ve been waiting so patiently with us are here for the 12th report of PAC item 11 for PAC Road if it’s still in order to, and I don’t know if we need a motion to go six past six PM or what not either.

[4:56:11] Okay, so the answer is yes. You can make a change of order. It requires two thirds of the support of council, but it is very messy and easy to grab, not to move the whole planning report up. So we can move the whole planning report up. The chair could put a specific item on the floor first. He could present that report as he saw, but he could present an item first, which I think is your intent to do the PAC Road one. But we need to move the whole planning to the report. Just it’s just easier and we don’t want to, we don’t want the system to follow that. I can appreciate that. So looking to move with two thirds of your support of council to remove the 12th report of PAC up next prior to the election.

[4:56:48] It’s the next thing we deal with. And I saw someone second council serve for our seconds. Non-amendable or debatable requires two thirds. I’ll let you know when we’re ready to open that. Okay, since it’s non-amendable or debatable, we’re gonna open that for voting.

[4:57:31] Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to one. That’s our layman. You get to present your committee report. Thank you. Thanks for that motion, councilor. As much as I was going to applaud councilor for being on this feat for three hours, I applaud the folks up there. Four hours, I applaud the folks up there, much more for having to listen to this all afternoon before we get to the point that you’re here.

[4:58:08] So number 11, which is referring to PAC Road, that’s the only item I’ve had request to pull. So I will go to the chair for direction. If we want to just run through the consent items for if you want to get ready to PAC Road. Councilor, I think you wanted to pull number four, but maybe I’m wrong. No. Oh, no, okay, I’ll get then. No. So we got them all together.

[4:58:40] Yeah, I just looked at councilors. Are people looking to have substantive debate on all the other items? Okay, then why don’t, let’s just knock off. We’ll deal with 11 separate, PAC Road separate. We’ll put everything else on the floor right now. Okay, so I’ll put all items from one through 10 on the floor. Okay, they’re all on the floor. Any discussion for all those items? Go ahead, Councilor Raman. Thank you and through you and not to hold up our discussion on PAC Road, but I do want to talk about 1225 Wonderland Road North.

[4:59:19] So I just want to first take a moment to say thank you again to the applicant for this application and the process that they went through. There was significant engagement with the community over the course of over a year on this application. And even before that with me as a Councillor, as they were bringing this forward. So I’m appreciative of them for that. I understand there is still considerable community concern, especially for the folks on Limber Lost. And I do hope that through the process, that through site plan, that some of those issues can be addressed.

[4:59:55] And I saw them addressed in the motion and have shared those with them all as well. I also heard from many seniors in the area that live around Sherwood Forest Mall. It is a place that they value for walkability. They value the fact that they can go in and out and get their groceries and to get their access to the library easily. So again, within the site plan discussion, I’m hoping that the developer will consider earmarking some spaces for the library, particularly at the back entrance of the building.

[5:00:30] And I hope that the library board makes those similar requests because I think it’s imperative as we’re investing a lot of money into redeveloping the library at Sherwood Forest Mall, that we make sure that there’s adequate space to park and that it’s accessible and easy. I did look at the parking study. I know there’s ample parking or it seems like there’s ample parking on Sherwood Forest Mall. I can tell you I’m there quite often and it is very difficult sometimes to get a spot. So although I do see we have data that shows all otherwise. So just wanted to share again my support for the application for this nine story building at this time.

[5:01:09] And again, thanks to committee for their work on this as well. Any other speakers to all of these items? Go ahead, Councillor Trossa. Just to thank Councillor Raman, I’m not the ward councillor, but I almost am, and I’m also interested in the library. So I share all the concerns she raised. My view is these can be raised during site review, so I was not going to pull or debate the item, but I have the same, many of the same issues.

[5:01:46] Concerns, yeah. Thanks, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I just wanted to say a quick thank you to the planning committee for the work done on 8.48, the Hewitt and King Street parking, that is critically important to the residents of those buildings there. And so to get the extra two year extension was very much appreciated, so thank you to committee. Okay, any other speakers? Also, my son says hi, and he wants more time on his tablet, so he’s watching the meeting, so I’ve done that now, it’s my phone that unlocks it.

[5:02:23] He’s probably laughing now. Okay, that’s everything except PAC Road, so the whole committee reports on the floor will open that for voting. Plows in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. I need a motion to go past six o’clock, probably should do that now. Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Stevenson, we’ll do that in the system in just one moment.

[5:03:11] Okay, this requires two-thirds support. Okay, two-thirds support, I don’t see anybody, I don’t think it’s even debatable, let’s just vote on it, I’m gonna open it for voting. Plows in the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Okay, go ahead, Councillor. Thank you, I will put item 11 on the floor, dealing with PAC Road.

[5:03:49] Okay, that’s the committee recommendation on the floor. Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, your worship, I do have a referral, and I understand a referral goes first, so I would like to put the referral on the floor, and I’ll read it out. Yes, please go ahead as well, that the application of Southside Construction Limited relating to the property located at 6309 PAC Road be referred to a future meeting, of the Planning and Environment Committee to allow civic administration time to work with the application, to review opportunities to reduce the proposal, building heights and density of the development, and I’m looking for a seconder.

[5:04:33] Councillor for a second, so the referrals on the floor. Yeah, if I could speak to it. Yep, go ahead. And I’m gonna really start off, I wanna thank residents from PAC Road for hanging in with us all afternoon. I should have listened to you and said, come at three, not at two, so my apologies. So I’m gonna start off with the concerns that we’ve heard that have been raised by the public. And for me, I wanna speak to my concerns, and it really is gonna start with the consistency in recommendations, ‘cause we have seen a number of recommendations going forward in this area in Ward 9, and we are going to see more coming forward as well.

[5:05:21] As it relates to this development, I do think that there is time. We have passed the timeline of making a decision. So the applicant has an opportunity to go LT right now. I would like to encourage the applicant and civic start to continue conversations given their number of concerns. And I’m gonna address three. Transportation, I was disappointed to see in the GMIS that the Bradley Street extension has been moved forward to 2033.

[5:05:59] I know at SPPC, we are gonna revisit that extension and the possibility of moving Pack Road into four lanes through the MMP. But I think there are greater concerns when it comes to density and heights. In these areas that have no opportunities to move around or very little opportunities, we usually see density and heights come in where there’s transit, for instance. This is a continuous concern.

[5:06:34] Not only if you read the recommendation, how it’s gonna work, the access in and out with this application, but what happens to other developments that we’ve already approved in this area? I wanna speak again to the natural heritage feature as we put in 40,000 units next to a natural heritage feature. How do we do that when there’s still outstanding issues? And I think these issues still can be resolved and discussed. I do have concerns personally when I do not see the planner’s name on a recommendation.

[5:07:13] I do have big concerns ‘cause when I look at applications, how it fits and the compatibility of this development and how it works in this neighborhood. Urban Design Review make comments with their concerns, but I do have great concerns as we develop the extent of the height and density in this area. I wanna speak to a little bit of the comments from residents that we’ve received. And we have, and I’m hoping that colleagues have checked in with clerks with the petition over 500 residents supporting a petition to reject this recommendation.

[5:07:59] And I wanna address some of the concerns I’ve heard from the community. The proposal is premature. This will be setting a precedent for applications in neighborhood type settings in London. And I think it’s reasonable that their expectations for what can be built, looking at the swap plan and the London plan. And yes, we know it needs to probably be updated, but those are our policies that we have.

[5:08:34] And I think expectations and the community being involved in trying to understand our policies is really important here. And I guess the final comment I’d like to make on behalf of residents is that there is a balance that is needed to just reflect on how we build our communities, it shouldn’t be that number game that we’re trying to achieve. It is really, really important that when we make decisions here for the next generation or for the next 10 years, that we really do have a better understanding and expectation on how we develop.

[5:09:16] So I am asking my colleagues here to support the referral going back. Yes, thanks Councillor. And as I discussed before, and I’ve just issued this caution to you, like comments like I get concerned when there isn’t a planner’s name on a report. The deputy city managers, they can sign the reports as they see fit. We make it sound like something untoward is happening. So that’s what I talked about before, and I’m gonna engage on these things a little more clearly from now on. So we’re not gonna say things like that, okay?

[5:09:50] Yeah, okay, I’ll look for other speakers. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, worship. So I appreciate the Councillors representing the concerns of her ward, but I’m encouraging colleagues to defeat the referral. And the Councillor herself has said, you know what, the applicant can go to the OLT. The applicant hasn’t because they’ve been waiting for the decision to be made.

[5:10:24] What happens if the applicant goes to the OLT? They go armed with our planning staff’s recommendation the private planner’s recommendation. Our city solicitor’s team does not defend the position. We have to get outside legal counsel because we’re making a decision against a staff recommendation. It is very different to give approval to something that staff has said should be refused ‘cause we think it’s borderline and we go, “Oh, it’s fits, it’s okay.” We’re coloring outside the lines a little bit.

[5:10:56] Then it is to refuse the recommendation to move forward from our professionally accredited staff and the private sector’s professionally accredited staff, both in agreement on this. So in my view, we’re actually gonna create a sense of false, we’re gonna create a false expectation that this is gonna be defeated or that’s gonna be changed ‘cause armed with both sides, our staff and their staff’s recommendation to move ahead. They’re gonna go to the OLT and they’re gonna overturn the council refusal.

[5:11:31] You know, like, I think it’s point of order. Can you please rise and make your point of order? I don’t think it’s useful to make predictions about what a quasi-judicial body is gonna do when a matter that hasn’t even been filed yet comes before them. Anything can happen, it’s like a football game, anything can happen on any given day and I think we should refrain from making definitive predictions about what a quasi-judicial body is going to do.

[5:12:05] We should say, I think, but I just don’t think that’s a good thing to be saying. So that’s not a point of order. I will suggest perhaps that is not the most strategic thing to do, but councilor I’ll be frank, you have said things like that too in reference to potential legal matters before this council. So let’s all not use language like that. Let’s just talk about the issues before us. Let’s have a debate and we’ll refrain, I’ll ask deputy mayor to refrain from making predictions about what another body would do, but I’ll ask all councilors to be consistent in that as well.

[5:12:41] So the deputy mayor is nodding, he takes it back and the point of order is dealt with. Yes, so I will say, I think in my experience in the six and a half years I’ve been here and seen this happen a number of times that we will lose at the OLT, that is my opinion. I think we are setting up false expectations that something is going to change here. As councilor Hopkins referenced, councilor close and I did bring forward a motion at SPPC to add something to the MMP so that we could review the PAC road widening in a different manner than it might otherwise happen because we did hear that the constituents concerns about transportation.

[5:13:19] But we’ve got a London transit report coming on the SPPC agenda too, and we hear requests for transit service in neighborhoods all the time, but the transit service doesn’t come until the density comes because the riders have to be there before the route makes sense. So there are, like I understand where things are coming from. But when we say things like, you know, urban design didn’t agree with everything. And that’s fine, they didn’t. We know what, we just approved the update on bill 17.

[5:13:54] On our last vote, we approved the update we received from staff on bill 17, which as urban design guidelines are now no longer something that staff can require in a planning application. We can request them. We have zero ability to enforce them. So yes, we are going beyond what swap envisioned. But again, swap was created in 2012, passed in 2014 based on the 1989 official plan. The London plan in 2026, we’ve heard the lead author, Mr. Fleming, stand in the gallery and tell us that it is out of date.

[5:14:35] In fact, on July 17th, the minister signed off on Heights plan review that will be coming to us next month for approval of the bylaw after the ministry is signed. We’ve already approved the report coming from staff, but it has to get signed off by the province before we have the third reading. We’ll be doing that next month. So we have to think in terms of the planning act and the application of where we come up with a refusal when we are referring or not supporting a staff recommendation, because we have to base our decisions in a way that can be defended at the OLT as a planning consideration.

[5:15:15] And when I look through the staff recommendation, there’s not something that I can say definitively is a reason to defer, refer or defeat. What I do see is a number of holding provisions implemented by staff that ensures things are proceeding in an orderly manner, that we don’t get the housing before we get the sanitary sewer service, that we don’t get curbs and gutters with no road there yet. Like all of these things come in a certain order. And that’s why there’s my lost track. I counted them at committee, but I forget what the number was, but there’s like a dozen holding provisions, there are boats in this application to make sure that things happen in a specific order.

[5:16:00] And it’s not just PAC Road and Bostwick Road. This plan of subdivision creates six new interior streets as well. People are going to be moving out onto Bostwick and onto packet different locations. It won’t just be at the corner. And so that is why I’m saying to colleagues, we do need to defeat the referral. We need to support the staff recommendation. We need to support the committee recommendation and approve this application today. Okay other speakers to this.

[5:16:35] Go ahead, Councillor Troso. Through the chair, as somebody who is not the word counselor for these people. And as somebody who is looking at this from a city-wide perspective, I learned a lot about PAC Road in the last couple of weeks. And I don’t go there a lot. And I don’t have neighbors that go there a lot. So I am speaking not from the perspective of what I’m hearing from my word constituents.

[5:17:12] I’m speaking from the perspective of somebody who’s trying to do a city-wide analysis of this. And what really sticks out for me more than anything else is the fact that this is not consistent. It’s inconsistent. It’s fundamentally inconsistent with the area plan. Now the response to that has been the area plan is outdated. And at a time of change, area plans typically are outdated.

[5:17:45] And they need to be updated from time to time. But that’s not the same thing as ignoring it. It’s not the same thing. I think when people moved into this subdivision, they understood, I have not heard one person say, they want to keep that open space across the street. I’ve not heard one person say that. What I’ve heard is a very, very cooperative neighborhood group that is raising very legitimate concerns based on what their reasonable expectations were, which go back for many of them to when they moved into the neighborhood.

[5:18:23] Which is, yes, there’s going to be a lot of development across the street, but it’s not going to be these high rises. It’s not going to be these densities, this density. Something happened in between the area plan, which is still valid. And this application, this application, and I know that the staff member who this was assigned to spent a lot of time at a community meeting and speaking with residents. So in all due respect, Mayor, I’m troubled by that too.

[5:18:59] I’m troubled by that. So Councilor, I’m going to stop you. You can be troubled by it, but we have senior staff at the municipality who have provided their endorsement of a plan. And you do not get to go down the path of making veiled accusations that they’ve done something untoward. They do an analysis, they make a recommendation, they’ve done that, they explained very clearly at the committee the rationale for their recommendations. And so I think you can debate this without having to raise those pieces.

[5:19:36] And I would encourage you to do so, please. Well, I’m not claiming anything has been done that’s untoward. I’m claiming that I would feel more comfortable with this if I saw the staff recommendation. And we’re just going to have to disagree on that. And I think this does go to appeal. I’m sure that’s an issue that would likely come up. But again, I’m not going to predict what’s going to happen at the hearing. So where I want to leave this, I think I’m running out of time, is as somebody who is not the word, Councilor, I very strongly believe that this application, and later on, if this is not successful, I’ll be arguing that we should vote no on this.

[5:20:18] But I think for now, there’s the opportunity to try to have further discussion. We used to do that all the time. I mean, it’s unfortunate that the province has taken away our ability to have more time. It’s unfortunate that the province has taken away our ability to engage in bonuses, which might be a partial solution here. But I feel at this point, I very strongly believe that the best course of action, from a city-wide perspective, is to send this back for further discussion. And you know what?

[5:20:49] If the applicant wants to run to the board, they have the opportunity to do that. And I think, well, I’m going to start by saying, I think, but I think that there are several issues that could be raised at the board. I won’t go into that further, but please give this more time. Thank you very much. So, Councilor, I know you say we can agree to disagree. That’s not how it works. As per the procedure by-law, when a member considers that the integrity of a member of civic administration has been questioned, the chair shall, if they choose to do so, permit the city manager or deputy city manager, or they’re designated to make a statement to the council, and I would invite the city manager to do so, in regards to the city manager or the deputy city manager, to do so in regards to the signing of this report.

[5:21:43] You can both do it. Sorry, do you want to go? I’m not sure, okay. Sorry, do you worship just to be really clear? So, this is a recommendation that’s endorsed by staff, the planner, the city planner, who’s Heather McNeely, is the person who signed off on this report. So, there’s a recommendation from a planner that’s providing this to you. So, I just want to be very open to that, and that’s what you had before you, is the staff recommendation. Okay, we will proceed with the debate. I have Councilor Bauman next, I think.

[5:22:20] Bauman, thank you. Sorry. Thank you and through you. Just a question on the referral. Just keeping in mind standards, statutory timelines. I’m wondering if this, right now, it’s this future meeting. I’m just wondering if a referral would be outside of statutory timelines? I think I can confirm we’re already outside of the statutory timeline. So, but I’ll have our staff. Thank you, through your worship, through you. Yes, we’re at 154 days now. We’re well past the 120 day timeline, and the applicant can appeal at any time.

[5:22:59] Thank you. Okay, that changes my opinion on where the referral. I wasn’t sure whether or not the timeline was the issue. So, again, as you mentioned, it’s in the hands of the applicant, I guess, in that sense. With respect to the referral, it states so that city staff can go back and work with the applicant on the density and the height. But this is coming as staff recommended.

[5:23:33] So, I’m just wondering if this is, the referral is the direction to actually reduce, ‘cause right now it doesn’t say reduce. So, I just wanna make sure that the referral feels like more than just referring this to a future meeting. It feels like we’re going back and doing more work on it outside the deadline, and I’m not really sure where that leaves us. So, maybe if staff could let me know, have we been down this road before where we’ve had something outside the timeline, where we’ve referred it back and has that been part of our process in the past?

[5:24:11] Go ahead. Thank you through your worship. It presents some challenges, for sure. We can have those conversations with the applicant if they’re willing to reduce based on some of the public feedback, but pretty much the staff recommendation is what will be recommended. Thank you, they’ll leave it at that on the referral. Thank you. I look for other speakers on the referral.

[5:24:55] That’s a layman. I just wanna follow up on that, questioning through you to staff. Have you had extensive conversations with height, with the applicant as of this point? Through your worship, yes we have, and that’s part of the revised application that came subsequently, and in June and there was public notice on that, and that’s been part of the conversations to this point. We’ve talked about site design, potentially how we can mitigate in terms of some of the location of the buildings, and recognizing as well, the maximum heights and densities that we’re talking about, the developer doesn’t necessarily have to go to that maximum.

[5:25:39] It’s within that, and so that may be opportunities through discussions with site plan, and such that we can work with the applicant. Go ahead, and through your chairs, or anything in those discussions that would lead you to believe having further conversations would lead to a different opinion by staff on this particular application. Thank you, through your worship, at this point, no, but potentially, again, allocating within the land, shifting, maybe some of the height variation within that to mitigate as much as possible for the neighbors on the north side of Pack Road.

[5:26:16] Go ahead, and that would come through site plan. Is that correct through your chair? Go ahead. Through your worship, yes, that’s correct. Councilor Hawke, ‘cause I know you put your hand up, you already spoke almost all of your time on the referral already, but not the main, so you could speak again later. So how many seconds do I have? It’s council, you get to speak once, so you’ve spoken. Councilor Frick. Thank you, a couple questions through the chair. I’m just wondering, does this comply with our EMGs?

[5:27:03] Through your worship, yes, it does. They’re 50 plus meters in terms of the buffer setback, where under the EMGs, it’s 30 meters, but now through council, we’ll be looking at 20 meter buffer. Go ahead. Thank you. And then one additional question, so I did notice that there’s park lands that aside on the top north. Is that how much is required? ‘Cause it does seem very kind of like Soviet block style, so I’m just wondering if there’s any more space for a park within the development and not just tucked in the top left corner, and if that’s a discussion that was had with the developer?

[5:27:42] Go ahead. Through your worship, as with any large block type development, there’d have to be amenity on site amenity to support the amount of density, and it could be in the form of green space within on the ground level, rooftops, balconies, and such. Good. Thank you. And my assumption would be that site plan, then we’ll be covering off what those actually look like and not, ‘cause I know rendering an actual implementation can look fairly different. Go ahead.

[5:28:15] Yes, through your worship, that’s correct. And a lot of the site functionality, designs, layout, connectivity within the development, as well as connectivity to Park Road, and leading to the neighborhood, or I’ll review just part of site plan. Thank you, yes. I was waffling on this application, having read the input from residents and from the application, as well as the report from staff. It’s not necessarily the density and the height that bothered me so much as the location of where it all will be, given we don’t have transit, although I know that we’ll build out to hopefully service that area eventually, but as well as the design, the layout of it, didn’t really seem like an enjoyable place for people to live.

[5:28:57] So I am hopeful, though, through site plan that we can address some of those issues, and I hope the developer is listening, because right now it’s not necessarily, in my opinion, a place that I would consider moving, given the lack of amenities that are clearly articulated in the rendering. So I won’t support a referral because it’s not the height that bothers me, but I am hopeful as we had those comments, site plan will address many of my concerns. That exists, my speaker’s listed on the referral, so we will open the vote on the referral now.

[5:29:33] Council votes yes. Who’s in the vote, motion fails, five, 10. Okay, so back to the main motion, which the chair put on the floor, Councillor Hopkins spoke and then moved to referral, so I’ll look for speakers to the main motion now. Councilor Lehman. Yeah, I’ll speak to this.

[5:30:08] This is an example of decisions that are having to be made at planning, and then by this council, and I just wanna provide some perspective overall. There’s a lot of references to the 2014 Southwest Secondary Plan. That was created 70,000 people ago. One is increased in size by 70,000. Since then, recently, we’ve been given the target of 47,000 units by 2031. That’s the size of Woodstock.

[5:30:43] We face serious financial implications. We don’t meet those targets. We’ve already seen that when we’ve missed the target a couple of years ago. We will be over half a million people very shortly, and the provinces told us that we would be the size of Hamilton in 20 or 30 years. So we’ve had to change our thinking, I think, since the Southwest Secondary Plan was put forward. We’ve moved to subdivisions that are now mixed density.

[5:31:24] And without that high-density portion of these subdivisions, we’re not gonna achieve these targets. We’re not gonna come close. I understand the concerns of the residents. I met with them. And on this particular application, there was two concerns of mine, one, which was referenced by Councillor Frank, was the rendering, but that’s my understanding, since that’s a very high-level rendering. And I intend to work very closely with the applicant to get a livable development and getting that through the site plan process.

[5:32:11] And I think it’s important that we do. Or else we’re gonna see more pushback on this as we go further into the other areas, especially in this other portion that we’re seeing in the West side that we have. My other concern was transportation traffic. But that was addressed by Councillor Palose’s motion when we were discussing the mass mobility plan and getting pack road widening explicitly mentioned in that mass mobility plan. We face opposition to the changes in density in this city, whether it’s in a small neighborhood with a lock-up or a six-story or in a higher build-out, like over the next 20, 25-year subdivision, that we’re talking about now.

[5:33:04] The frustration I have is when we have one hand, and I mentioned this in planning our urban growth boundary review, we have opposition to expanding the urban growth boundary because we’re concerned about agricultural land, et cetera, and the cries are for higher density. And yet on reverse, we say, well, we can’t build on high density here. We can’t have it both ways. We’re going to have to do both, actually. We’re going to have to expand the urban growth boundary.

[5:33:37] And we’re going to have to look at higher density, not only downtown and the core, but we’re going to have to look at it in subdivisions that are coming over the next decade or 20 years. It’s hard. It’s hard to go against public opinion ‘cause I understand where these folks are coming from. But in my position here, and looking at the bigger situation that we’re in, I will support this particular application. Okay.

[5:34:17] Other speakers to the main? Oh, yes, Councillor Romans. All right, got you on the list right here. Thank you and through you. So I won’t be supporting the application today that’s in front of us on Pack Road. And this is a challenging application and the fact that it’s coming to us as supported by city staff. And I really do appreciate the work that city staff have done on this application. And so I understand, you know, concerns around this going to an appeal if it’s staff recommended.

[5:34:55] But I do feel like this is a bit of a litmus test. And for that reason, I’ve decided not to support it. I see some challenges with site compatibility with adjacent lands. I see that there is some servicing challenges. I agree that they’re being addressed through holding provisions and that or can be addressed through holding provisions, but we did receive also communication from SIFTEN properties as well on this application. So again, I’m just expressing my own personal opinion on why I see challenges with the application.

[5:35:28] I know school availability is a challenge. I know that our community continues to wait for school spaces. This community in particular has had quite a bit of challenges. And as we continue to push forward with availability that has to be a consideration for us, we want to build complete communities, which also means that we have to be building communities where transit is available. And I represent the Northwest. The Northwest part of the city is very similar to the Southwest part of the city. And they feel very similar in terms of the ability to have services online when they move into a community.

[5:36:08] The Northwest part of the city is also concerned with the fact that it’s been 15 years and they’ve been promised transit and they don’t have it. So how much longer are new communities going to have to wait in order to get the services that we are saying that they are due to get when they move into our neighborhoods? The idea of a complete community must be paramount to the work that we do here at council. And we do that, again, under the skies of, well, we have to approve so many units, but I cannot be beholden to the province on this idea that we are going to live up to this commitment on numbers of units if it’s not what’s best for the community.

[5:36:55] And ultimately, for me, I love this city for the amenity spaces that we have. I love this city for our parks. I love this city for its walkability. I love this city for the ability to have some of the amenities that make our community unique. What I hear from the residents of Pack Road, what I hear about the people that live in Talbot Village is that this density is not what they understood that they were going to experience when they moved into those neighborhoods. They agreed 15 years ago in some cases to move into a community that was going to feel like a growing community, yes, but they’re not saying no to development.

[5:37:37] They’re saying no to the amount, the density, the look, the feel, the fact that this looks like just a significant block of just high-rise buildings, we do still get to make these kinds of decisions as to what’s best for this city. And again, I believe this is a litmus test for us as council. And so I won’t be supporting this application. Okay, I’m not gonna let Councillor Layman speak again, but he did tell me he accidentally at the end of his comments said I won’t support this application.

[5:38:19] He meant he will support this application. And he just wanted to clarify that. He just misspoke at the end. So, I mean, you can reflect that in your vote, but I appreciate why you’d want that clarified yet given your comments that led up to it. Other speakers to this, go ahead, definitely Ray Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m not gonna repeat everything that I said on the referral. However, I do think, you know, I heard what Councillor ramen’s saying. I respect the opinion.

[5:38:53] We don’t get as a city council to decide when the Ministry of Education is gonna fund a new school. We don’t get to decide when the Ministry of Health is going to fund a new hospital. Those are provincial decisions. And we heard members of the public say in the gallery, but we don’t have enough family doctors or we don’t have enough room in our emergency departments. And that may be true. But we also don’t have any vacancy in our housing supply. And we have people who are already here waiting.

[5:39:27] We’ve heard that, you know, this is going to be a 15 to 20 year build out to complete the entire subdivision. These buildings aren’t going to pop up tomorrow. It’s the whole reason why there’s holding provisions because things will happen in a course of order over the next few years as things happen. It’s the same reason why the Pac Road evaluation and in the GMIS comes in 2033 because it’s going to take time to dig footings, to build buildings, to put in new streets, new infrastructure. That all comes in an order of operations.

[5:40:02] So while I appreciate the comments about, you know, school challenges and, you know, I said this at committee, I suspect the Catholic School Board regrets closing St. Robert School because now they have portables on the lawn at St. Pia School. But we don’t get to decide that. There’s a school board that has to do that and through the Ministry of Education funding that has to do that. So I come back to what I was saying on the referral. We have to in making our decisions on planning applications, make those decisions based on the planning rationale and the things that we’re allowed to consider in the planning act.

[5:40:43] It’s not something where I disagree that this funding formula from the province is terrible. In terms of having to expect a school is at 100% capacity the day it opens. We should be building schools to allow growth and shrinking of cohorts over the years as neighborhoods change. But we don’t get to decide the funding formula here. What we do have, and Councillor Layman talked about the urban growth boundary and those things and I agree with what he was saying there. But what we do have right now is a vacancy rate under 2.5% in our housing stock in this city.

[5:41:23] And while we talk about, you know, we can’t be beholden to a 47,000 housing target, we have a housing shortage now, let alone the 47,000 that we need by 2031. So there are some decisions that have to be made. You know, Councillor Layman referenced that we face opposition on all of these. I had an angry constituent last night on an application that we just approved for 10 town homes. And I heard the same things. Oh, the traffic is going to ruin my street. It’s going to bring crime to the area.

[5:41:57] I’ll tell you, not everybody. We had a lot of respectful engagement from residents in Pack Road and I give them credit for that. But I got emails telling me that this was going to be, that because they were going to be rental buildings, it was going to be a low income ghetto. And so that’s why when I weigh the decisions that I have to make, I don’t get to consider whether they’re going to be rental or ownership. We have to make our decisions based on planning matters. You know, we hear it in other awards where the people are concerned it’s going to be student housing.

[5:42:33] But we don’t get to decide who lives there. That’s something that happens after the fact. We only get to decide if the buildings give built or not. So that’s why I’m encouraging colleagues to please, I know that there’s community opposition. I understand where they’re coming from. But we have to actually make our decision based on the authorities we have as a municipal council. And that’s why I’m encouraging you to support this application. Yes, go ahead, Councillor Trossa. Thank you and through the mayor. We don’t get to make decisions about the school boards.

[5:43:08] We don’t get to make decisions about hospitals. But we get to make decisions about the application of the Planning Act and how that is affected by previous plans, that’s what the city council does. This city council not only has the opportunity to make these decisions, we have an obligation to make these decisions. We can distinguish between a lot of different oppositions that we’ve heard at this council and at the committee.

[5:43:47] This is the most compelling one I’ve heard. Not only is this the most compelling one that I’ve heard, this is the one that has the weight of the area planning back of it. I’ll be it outdated, as it said. I guess I have a question for the solicitor if I can direct that through the mayor. If this, hypothetically, if this would come to a hearing, would the Southwest Area Plan have any effect, would it be considered by the trier of fact, or would it be totally dismissed because it’s outdated?

[5:44:34] And I would put that to the solicitor. I’ll go to the solicitor. Thank you and through you. It would likely be part of the consideration, but it’s hard to say because we’re looking at a hypothetical right now. Thank you, and I think that’s a very fair assessment. But it’s not as if we’re being told that by saying this is outdated, it doesn’t get before the board, the tribunal, it does.

[5:45:10] And I think what’s even more significant here than whether or not it’s outdated and should have been reviewed is the good faith reasonable expectations that have been going on during the entire process since this development in Northropack Road been built. And I’m telling you, there are a lot of equities here and there are a lot of very, very good arguments.

[5:45:46] I should also add that I believe that the vacancy rate is 3.8% in South London. But I think that’s beside the point. The fact that we have a very aggressive provincial target, provincial mandate should not supersede the careful deliberation that this body makes on these quasi-dudeistal matters. And if there’s a price to pay for not satisfying the province, I don’t think that we can sacrifice one group in search of the holy grail of these numbers.

[5:46:35] We have to make reasonable planning decisions. And I think it’s fair to say that this could be a close case if it goes up to tribunal and possibly judicial review after that, because I think what’s at stake here is the usability, the viability, the integrity, the precedent setting value of area plans. And once we throw that out, we’ve thrown out a lot of the fundamental work that we’ve done over the years to try to create a coherent land use regime in London.

[5:47:19] And let’s go back and update this plan if that’s what needs to happen. A lot of them need to be updated, but we can’t ignore it because we need additional numbers. So I think with that, I’ve made my points and I think I’m just going to, how much time do I have left? 49 seconds. Okay, I think I’ve said what I have to say. Please vote no on this. This is probably the most significant land use application that this term of council will see.

[5:47:58] Please vote, thank you. Okay, I’ll look for other speakers. Okay, I’ll speak ‘cause I’ll turn over the chair to the February. Take the chair to recognize Mayor Morgan. Yeah, thank you. I’ll start with just a couple of questions. To our staff, often through debate, I think sometimes it can get lost on what’s allowed to what we’re moving to.

[5:48:32] So along the North side of Pack Road, what does the Southwest area plan, what does the Southwest area plan suggest and what year was it approved? Ms. McMealy? Thank you, through the chair. I just would like to take a step back. The subdivision on the North side of Pack Road actually predated Southwest area secondary plan. That subdivision, that area was done under the North Talbot area plan, which then became subsumed within SWAP at the secondary plan.

[5:49:08] So that policy framework for those were a little bit more, we’ll just say what we would see in terms of homogeneous type planning, lower rise, lower intentional. There was an OMB decision for the high rise on Tillman and Southdale Road. That’s quite tall, that was in the planning report as well. We were highlighting some other activity within the area that are showing increased heights. So that’s that context for that neighborhood. Then subsequently SWAP came into force and effect as was identified as 2014, but that takes time to review.

[5:49:48] So it actually started a couple of years in advance of 2014 under the 1989 plan. And the intention of that was the Wonderland Corridor. That was the highest intensity and then the Boswick neighborhood to the west of the Wonderland Corridor was to be the highest intensity to support that commercial corridor. Then there was the North Lambeth neighborhood and that contemplated higher intensities, not as much as the Boswick neighborhood by higher intensities that were then contemplated to be higher than any other neighborhood or across the city.

[5:50:25] Again, these were the building blocks of how we wanted to see these lands that were annexed into the city at that time back in 1991 to use the land efficiently because they were primarily agricultural lands prior to them being annexed. So that was the vision of using the lands efficiently. It was intended to have higher intensities and higher densities and additional height. Through this review, the London Plan Contour plates along the South Side of Pack Road six stories. However, swap the Southwest Area Secondary Plan trumps the London Plan policies.

[5:51:03] So that contemplates nine stories. What the applicant has proposed and the staff recommended was actually splitting the blocks along Pack Road to be split between 12 stories and nine stories. So within that block. So again, within the block, that transition. And a quarter of the one block on the Northeast portion of the property is at 16 stories. So it’s not the whole of the block and it’s not all the way along Pack Road is being six stories. And as I mentioned before, the applicant can choose to build within that upper maximum.

[5:51:40] They don’t have to build to the full extent. And that’s under any zoning or any land use policy. Yeah, Morgan. So within the North Side of Pack Road, under the Southwest Area Plan, nine is contemplated. And within the approved plan, between nine and 12, a mix of them is possible with that being the upper density that doesn’t necessarily have to be built to. And then at the Northeast corner, a little more intensity at 16. So I hear in the debate, that this is some massive adjustment to what the plans are.

[5:52:15] You’re talking about nine stories and now nine stories and maybe up to 12. And a build out of over 20 years where depending on market demand and conditions, it’s difficult to predict where in that range. These are upper density units, which have been increasing over a series of decades based on the way that we build out across the city. We don’t build large sprawling single family homes or we’re trying not to as much as possible to approve those anymore. We’re trying to approve mixed density developments contemplated in the Southwest Area Plan and the other plans that our staff mentioned.

[5:52:51] So I get that that is a difficult thing to absorb in a community. And I have been a part of being a ward counselor where there’s been significant densities approved in the ward and then through the site plan process, not necessarily all of that density ends up getting built, but a lot of it does. And it depends on the market conditions of time in the build out. So I would suggest given the other OMB at that time, not loyalty, but OMB decisions in the area that did support increased density, that we should proceed with a council position on this to say this is what we envision in the area.

[5:53:27] That does not preclude the ward counselor, the community, our staff through the site plan process to talk about the concerns that have been raised through this process. The developer who has a large block here is looking for some density, right? And we’re encouraging density across the city. How that’s spread, there is some flexibility between now and the point where these things get built over the next 20 years to adjust that. There’s the ability to have those discussions and I can say those discussions have been had. This is not, although the permission is there, there are a number of developers in the city who actually work with the community and staff to make some adjustments.

[5:54:06] Whether that’s trade off of community benefits or looking at where the density is spread or doing some step downs or putting balconies on a different side. There are things in the site plan process that are engaged with to try to minimize the impacts on community. But we are approving an upward threshold of density and yes, for sure, that could be the upper threshold that’s built. But I would not, despite council’s decision today, if we approve this, suggest that those conversations still can’t proceed as we’re contemplated under the referral. We just be taking that council position and then we’ll be approving the build out of an area, a significant build out of the area.

[5:54:42] And I know it was suggested this is one of the most significant planning applications we have. Well, no, there’s been others along Oxford Road. There’s the one at Hiberian Oxford. There are significant, large, big build outs that are multi-decade build outs that have been approved by this council in the city. And there will be ongoing conversations in those communities about how that evolves over time because over a 20 to 25 year period or whatever these build outs are, economic conditions change. The way things are built changed, technology changes. The city’s plans changed, right?

[5:55:17] So I’m going to support the staff recommendation. I’m going to suggest that we take to the position so that we’re not in a position of non-compliance with the OLT or the land use tribunal. But I would still encourage the councilor and others to engage with the developer on the build out of this over multi-decades to see where that density can shift. I’ve heard most of the complaints from people who engage with my office at the west end of the site and fewer at the east end of the site. And there’s the ability to maybe pack some density at that end rather than the other end.

[5:55:51] But those can be ongoing conversations. But I fully admit we would be locking in a decision today on the upward thresholds of permissions. So I’m going to support the density. This isn’t necessarily about chasing a provincial target. This is about how we build out the city. There’s a staff recommendation. We’ve heard a lot of engagement. We’ve had a lot of debate on this, which I think is the right thing to do. And we ultimately make a decision today. So I’ll be supporting the staff recommendation. Thank you, Mayor Morgan. I’ll return the chair to you. I have no one else on the speaker’s list.

[5:56:24] Councillor Hawkins. Yeah, thank you. Your worship and thank you for your comments. I’m going to just start off with disappointment with the referral and just because I have residents here, the referral lost five to 10. So it’s not proceeding. We’re now dealing with the main motion. And it shouldn’t be a surprise. I’m not going to be supporting the main motion and recommendation coming from staff. And I do thank staff for the work that went on, held an information session on planning policies in Ward 9, just because there are so many applications.

[5:57:03] This isn’t the only application in this area. There’s more to come. And there’s already been some that we’re approving. In fact, we’re approving another one in the next planning committee agenda. But I do want to speak to a number of things that I’ve heard. And I’m disappointed with the referral not being supported because I thought it was an opportunity. I heard loud and clear from the community, density and height, expectations within our policies and processes, where can we go?

[5:57:46] I’ve been on council, I’ve been on planning for a number of years. I know we have referrals, we need a reason to go back. That’s why I put density and height in there. That is what I heard from the community. So here we are, the main motion deciding, should we support the recommendation coming out of the planning and environment committee. And I would urge you not to support it. I do think there’s opportunities for the applicant and for city staff to continue those conversations.

[5:58:20] We have a site plan process. We have a number of holding provisions on, this is not going to develop right away. There’s a lot of unknown here. But I think it’s really important to understand that what we get to do here at planning and at council is make decisions for healthy neighborhoods. That is what we have control over. And we rely on our policies and processes to make that happen.

[5:58:57] 4,000 units is a lot of units going into this development along with all the other development applications that are happening. We want livable neighborhoods, not a numbers game. There’s a site plan process. We no longer have public input in a site plan process, going forward. It’s great that we can ask, where’s the application? Where is this going?

[5:59:31] But there is no public engagement. This is where it happens at the zoning stage. And this is where I think it’s important that we really understand the decisions that we are making here and the implications of these decisions. I really do think that we have these opportunities to make livable, healthy neighborhoods. I have concerns that this is not going to happen in this development when it comes to parks, spaces, how we even move around.

[6:00:10] We heard from a developer having concerns on their development that is right next to this development to the West. How this is all going to happen and come about. So I need to be convinced here that this council is just really gung-ho on making this happen. And I am not convinced that this is where we should go. So I’m encouraging you not to support the recommendation. Other speakers who haven’t spoken yet to the main motion.

[6:00:48] Seeing none, then we can open this for voting. Who’s in the vote? Motion carries. Nine to five. Mr. Lehman.

[6:01:23] Thank you. I believe that concludes the 12th report. And I would like to move on to the 11th report. OK, the 11th report of the planning and environment committee. Go ahead. Thank you. So I would like to pull item six. Their staff has informed me. There is a slightly revised attached by-law that we need to vote on separately. I have no other requests for other items to be pulled. Does anybody want anything else pulled knowing that six has to be pulled for revised by-law?

[6:02:02] No? OK. Then you can put everything else on the floor. Yeah, so I’ll put one through five and seven and eight on the floor. OK, any comments on those items? Yes, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I just want to make two-click comments on two items in this report. The first one is on the, I guess, the GMIS, which is 3.2, number five. There are a number of projects on this that are going to go forward in the land that area.

[6:02:42] There’s two, four, five of them, and they’re being rescheduled to be done sooner than later. Disappointed to see the Bradley Avenue Extension, which is the Wonderland to Bosphorus 1, which is going to be rescheduled to 2033. I just wanted to bring your attention to these projects. I do have a comment around number seven, which is 3.4, which is another big application. It’s phase two, 1300 units being developed south of the application that we just spoke to on Pack Road.

[6:03:21] So lots of development going on, lots of projects happening in the area. And those are my comments. OK, any other comments on this? OK, seeing none will open. These items are rolling. Seeing Councillors Cuddy and Councillor Hillier absent, closing the vote.

[6:04:04] Motion carries 12 to 0. Councillor Layman. Thank you. And I’ll move the staff for a revised by-law. Probably need a seconder for that, imagine. OK, so just for proper order of operations, you’ll put the committee’s recommendation on, and then you’re going to move the replacement, essentially, that you’re going to move an amendment that we have awarded.

[6:04:43] So OK, so I need a seconder for the amendment. Deputy Mayor Lewis, OK, we’ll get that up on the screen. So that amendment is up to create the revised by-law. I’ll look for any speakers to that.

[6:05:23] OK, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Motion carries 12 to 0. And the as amended motion moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Any discussion on that? No, OK, we’ll open that for voting. Motion carries 12 to 0.

[6:06:09] Thank you. That concludes the 11th Report of Planning and Environment Committee. OK, we’re on to the 9th Report of SPPC. I’ll turn it over to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m happy to present the 9th Report of the Street Chief Priorities and Policy Committee. I will note that while we did have some divided votes at committee, every item passed with a super majority of at least 10 votes or more. So I don’t know if colleagues, you did express your differences of opinion at committee, so I don’t know if we need anything pulled now.

[6:06:45] I have not been made aware of anything, so I’m prepared to move the whole report. OK, who would like something that was separately? OK, put your microphone on. Let me know what you want, please, Councillor. Yeah, I’ve indicated that I want number four pulled. I mean, I don’t know how I could be more clear about that. Yeah, I didn’t get that. I’m sorry, my apologies. So number four pulled. What else would colleagues like pulled? Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Number seven, please. So four and seven dealt with separately.

[6:07:21] Councillor Van Murebergen. You’d call it eight separately. OK, and eight separate. It looks like it. OK, go ahead. All right, I’ll put one through three, five, and six on the floor. OK, those are on the floor. Any discussion on those items? I see none, we can open that for voting. Motion carries 12 to 0.

[6:08:14] I’ll put item four on the floor. This is the second report of the governance working group. OK, that’s on the floor. I’ll look for any comments. Go ahead, Councillor Troso. And I will try to be brief through the chair. I will not repeat everything. I said at the governance working group, I will not repeat everything. I said at the SPPC, I will not repeat everything that I’ve said on numerous interviews. I do want to point out, though, and I want to stress that the request here is not to enact any alternative measure.

[6:08:51] The request here is to ask staff for an environmental scan on what other Ontario cities are doing in terms of how they’re selecting the deputy mayor and defining that role. And in the course of doing this— So, Councillor, that’s not on the floor anymore. That piece never made it through committee. So the items before us are the remaining clauses of the governance working group, because the motion and you spoke about it at the meeting failed 5 to 10.

[6:09:29] Yes, so I’ll be— you’re speaking to something that isn’t actually before us anymore. OK, so I’ll move the amendment of and seek an environmental scan regarding the way other Ontario cities select the deputy mayor. OK, so that’s moved. The Councillor’s moving the same item. He moved to committee. Is there a seconder for that? I don’t see a seconder, Councillor, so— I’ll reserve my comments for speaking against the motion. OK, so you want to speak against the remainder of the governance working group?

[6:10:07] You can continue speaking to the governance working group report. OK, so I’m going to vote against this then. I don’t think asking for the environmental scan. And the reason I’m voting against it is I think that we should be doing more than just fixing a technical glitch in what we have. And I think it’s reasonable that we do that for the next council term. I am so disappointed that other members of this body do not want to even get the information. One of the objections was this would be a burden on staff.

[6:10:43] Well, we had a community group undertake to get the information. And that’s in your added agenda. And I think if you look at your added agenda, you’ll see that strong towns has provided a very fulsome spreadsheet. And that’s on the public record. Members of the public could read that. I don’t think that there’d be much burden on staff here. They’d have to maybe verify the links and maybe add some of their own comments. But I guess my question is, why is this council so dead set against even looking at whether other jurisdictions are doing?

[6:11:21] And some of the other jurisdictions are doing things that are very different than we are. I’m not here today to evaluate that spreadsheet. But I can say, just on a cursory glance of it, London is an outlier. London is an outlier. And why this council is not interested in getting more information on this is besides me. I just do not understand it. I will continue to be talking about this. And I think those of my friends here on this council who would not even give me a second to get this on the motion, I just do not understand why you’re not willing to have this discussion.

[6:12:04] Because you know what? This discussion is going to happen in the community. It’s not going to happen on this council. That’s fine. We have a decided matter of council now that we can’t bring up again for another year. This discussion is going to happen in the community. And people are going to wonder what was council worried about that they didn’t want to even discuss it. Thank you very much. I’ll be voting against the motion, although I’m not sure what else I can do at this point. OK, other speakers to the Governance Working Group Report.

[6:12:38] OK, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Can Councilor Van Mirberg in absent, closing the vote. Motion carries 10 to 1.

[6:13:12] Go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. The next item that I’ll put forward is the Master Mobility Plan Notice of Completion. This is item seven from the Council agenda. It was item 4.3 on the Committee agenda. OK, that’s on the floor. Any comments or discussion on this? OK, ready? OK, all right, we’re going to see no comments.

[6:13:52] We’re going to open that for voting plan. You want to comment on it? Councilor? Thank you, Mayor. If you could call C separately from A&B. We can do that.

[6:14:25] Just going to take us a minute or two. OK, we’re doing A&B first, and that’s what you’re going to see open now.

[6:15:00] Motion carries 10 to 2. And we will do C next. That should be open now. Vote yes.

[6:15:44] Motion carries 12 to 0. And Your Worship, I’ll now put item 8. This is 4.4 from the Committee agenda. The 2024 Climate Emergency Action Plan Progress Report on the floor. OK, that’s on the floor. I’ll look for any comments. Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Motion carries 10 to 2.

[6:16:37] And that completes the 9th report of SPPC. OK, great. Added reports. Just give me one second on that. Anybody like to volunteer to read the added report? Mr. McAllister, I got his hand up quick. I’ll bring it over. This will give me some favoritism to wave over here.

[6:17:23] I’m good for God. OK, those keep me awake too. I’m getting very angry over here. This is the 12th report of council in closed session. Council in closed session report. Number one, lease extension agreement. Land, lease 520 Wellington Street Centennial House. Then on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance reports on the advice director of Realty Services with respect to the lease of land located at 520 Wellington Street Centennial House. The lease extension agreement attached as Appendix A between the city and Centennial House limited the tenant for land comprising a site of approximately 15,950 square feet located at 520 Wellington Street Centennial House for an additional term of 20 years ending December 31, 2052.

[6:18:06] Be approved. Number two, the license agreement renewal 380 Wellington Street City and WMGLCC Holdings Incorporated Emergency Management Security Services that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports with the concurrence of the director emergency management security services and on the advice director Realty Services with respect to the license renewal agreement for the non-exclusive right to use a portion of the roof known as the site located at 380 Wellington Street. The second license renewal agreement, license agreement attached as Schedule A between the city WMGLCC Holdings Incorporated, the lysore for the non-exclusive right to use portion of the roof of the site located at 380 Wellington Street for a term of five years.

[6:18:56] The second renewal term commencing on the first day of January 2026. And to be completed and fully ended on the 31st day of December 2030, be approved. Number three, property acquisition 533 Industrial Road that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports with the concurrence of director fleet and facilities on the advice of director Realty Services with respect to property located at 533 Industrial Road. London and legally described as lots 1920 in Block C, part of lots 15 and 16 and registered plan 18C as part of lot 14 and registered plan 848 in the city of London and county Middlesex being all of 1008127-0115.

[6:19:39] The subject property has shown on the location map attached as Benedict B to support the city operations master plan. The following actions be taken. A, the offer submitted by 533 Industrial Road Development Incorporated, the vendor to sell the property subject property to the city for the sum of $12,245,000. B, accepted subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement attached as Benedict C. And B, the financing for the requisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report attached here to as Benedict A, for offer to purchase industrial lands 1000690043 Ontario Inc.

[6:20:19] Here on Industrial Park that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports on the advice of the director of Realty Services with respect to the city owned industrial land located in here on Industrial Park C1 in the city of London in the county of Middlesex containing 0.185 acres, more or less to survey and composed of parts, part lots three and four, concession three being part 14 of plan 33R-21-778. And to be further described on the new reference plan and further shown outlined in red appendix A, the class two agreement of purchase and sale, the agreement attached as appendix B, submitted by 100690043 Ontario Incorporated, the purchaser to purchase 0.185 acres of subject property from the city at a purchase price, 54,112, 50 cents, be accepted, motions and conditions and terms as set out in the agreement, that on the recommendation of the clerk and in recognition of achieving the highest scholastic achievement in their graduating year, the following students be awarded the 2025 Queen Elizabeth Scholarship and the amounts Andre Guo, AB Lucas Secondary School, 99.5%, $2,000, Daniel Brunt, HP Secondary School, 99.5%, $2,000, the progress is made with respect to items 4.5, 4.6, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13 as noted on the public agenda, 6.5-12-IC SC, 6.1-11, CPSC, 6.1-12, PEC, 6.2-12-PEC, 6.3-12-PEC, 6.1-9-SPP-C, 6.2-9-SPP-C, 6.3-9-SPP-C, and yes, congratulations to the students.

[6:22:28] Excellent averages, hold on. All right, so you’re presenting that so you can still stand. I’ll ask if there’s any discussion on this. It’s moved by Councillor McAllister. I don’t see any, so we’re going to open these reports for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12-0.

[6:23:02] OK, we have no other added reports. We have no deferred matters. Increase. Seeing none, there are no emergent motions, so we’re going to buy laws. So here’s how I think we could do this. We’ll do the affordable home ownership bylaws first. There’s two bylaws associated with that. We’ll do the FCM agreement for better homes bylaws.

[6:23:37] There’s two for that after. Then we’ll do the PAC road related bylaws. Then we’ll do the Wellington Gateways appropriation of lands, and then we’ll do everything else. Does that sound OK? Yeah, everybody’s good with that? I’d prefer to have the same mover and seconder through the whole thing, and I assume you don’t want to move the PAC road one, so maybe I can have someone else do them. It’s just faster if it’s the same mover and seconder for all of the bylaws, if that’s OK. Deputy Mayor Lewis is willing to support everything. Anybody else?

[6:24:12] OK, I’ll use me. All right, or McAllister. You can take it. OK, all right, OK. So we’ll start with the Affordable Home Ownership Program, Bill’s 277 and 281. Moved and seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis and myself. We’ll open that for voting, first reading. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 11 to 1. And we’ll do second reading of this.

[6:24:48] Same mover and seconder. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, then we’ll open this for voting. And carries 11 to 1. And third and final reading, same mover and seconder. We will open that for voting. Motion carries 11 to 1. OK, next one we’ll do is the FCM agreement for Better Homes London.

[6:25:35] It relates to Bill’s 278 and 279. I’ll use the same mover and seconder. We’ll open first reading for voting. And carries 10 to 2. Second reading of this, same mover and seconder. Any discussion? OK, seeing none, we’ll open this for voting. Motion carries 10 to 2.

[6:26:12] And third and final reading of this. And carries 10 to 2. OK, the next one is the ACROAD related bylaws, 286 and 302. I’ll use the same mover and seconder for these. And we’ll open first reading for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 10 to 2.

[6:27:09] OK, and second reading for these items. Any discussion on this? Seeing none. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 10 to 2. OK, third and final reading of these items. I’ll open that for voting.

[6:28:08] Mr. Stevenson? Opposed in the vote, motion carries 10 to 2. OK, the next item is item 9, which is expropriational lands for the Wellington Gateway Project. It relates to Bill’s 287. I’ll move so people can vote differently on the bylaws than they do in the meeting.

[6:28:40] It’s fine. Screen I voted against it and it’s a ramen voter against it. I don’t think— That’s correct. Listen, Councillor— listen, I’m being very clear. I’m saying what the item is. I’m saying the bill numbers, and then we’re voting. So I don’t know what you’re asking for. People can vote how they want, all right? OK, Wellington Gateway.

[6:29:25] This is the Wellington Gateway expropriation bill. Now we’re doing Wellington and Gateway Project. It relates to Bill number 287. First reading move, same mover and seconder. We’ll open that for voting. Was in the vote, motion carries 10 to 2. Second reading.

[6:29:56] Is there any discussion, same mover and seconder? OK, we’ll open that for voting. Listen, there’s a lot of Councillors talking while we’re voting, and this sounds like some people are not paying attention to the vote, so we’d suggest stop having side conversations, pay attention to what you’re doing, and we’ll get through this quicker, and then we can all focus on the voting. There’s 10 to 2. Third and final reading of this bill. We’ll open that for voting.

[6:30:39] It carries 10 to 2. OK, now we have everything else. Same mover and seconder. We’ll open first reading of all the remaining parts of the agenda for voting. Was in the vote, motion carries 12 to 0.

[6:31:22] Second reading of all of these bills. Same mover and seconder. Is there any discussion, none? We’ll open that for voting. It carries 12 to 0. Third and final reading of these sets of bills. Same mover and seconder. We’ll open third reading for voting. Motion carries 12 to 0.

[6:32:10] OK, that completes the bylaws. The only thing we have left is adjournment. Look for a motion to adjourn. Moved by Councillor Ferrer. Seconded by Councillor Frank. We’ll do that by hand. All those in favor? Motion carries. All right, we’re adjourned. Thank you.