Open Council

12th Meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee

Open Council

12th Meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee

August 11, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Pribil

That Items 2.1 to 2.9 BE APPROVED with the exception of Item 2.7.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   3rd Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee

2025-07-10 - ACAC Report

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the 3rd Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on July 10, 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.2   4th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee

2025-07-24 - ESACAC Report

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee (ESACAC), from the meeting held on July 24, 2025:

a)    $400 of the ESACAC budget BE EXPENDED to purchase stickers promoting public awareness of the Service London portal and of pest control in buildings;

b)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to forward the submitted artwork for the two stickers to Strategic Communications for review;

c)    the Strategic Communications BE REQUESTED to provide public information relating to prevention of pest infestations in buildings on the City of London website;

d)    the amended proposal, as appended to the ESACAC Report, BE APPROVED by the Community and Protective Services Committee (CPSC) to use a portion of the 2025 ESACAC budget on public awareness stickers; and, 

e)    clauses 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 5.2 and 5.3 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.3   Municipal Request from Within the Service Area to Access W12A Landfill for Waste Disposal

2025-08-11 SR Access W12A Landfill for Waste Disposal

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report August 11, 2025, as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Council meeting to be held on August 26, 2025, to adopt the new Municipal Request to Access W12A Landfill Policy.

Motion Passed

2.4   Odour Management Technology Update and Single Source EnviroSuite Limited

2025-08-11 SR Odour Management Technology Update - Part 1

2025-08-11 SR Odour Management Technology Update - Part 2

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Pribil

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated August 11, 2025, related to the Odour Management Technology Update and Signal Source Envirosuite Limited:

a)    the above-noted staff report containing details of the odour management technologies being employed or examined at the W12A Landfill BE RECEIVED; and,

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 26, 2025, to:

i)     approve a Service Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Envirosuite Canada Limited (the “Service Agreement”), as appended to the above-noted by-law as Schedule “1”, for the continued operation and maintenance of six (6) ambient air monitors, one (1) weather station and electronic reporting for an additional twelve (12) months, in the amount of $99,220 excluding HST on a single source basis in accordance with 14.4(e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

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

iii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, to approve and execute amending agreements to the Service Agreement.

Motion Passed

2.5   2025-2028 Canada-Ontario Community Housing Initiative and Ontario Priorities Housing Initiative Approval of Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement and Investment Plan

2025-08-11 SR COCHI and OPHI Approval of Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement - Part 1

2025-08-11 SR COCHI and OPHI Approval of Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement - Part 2

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, that the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated August 11, 2025, related to the 2025 – 2028 Canada-Ontario Community Housing Initiative and Ontario Priorities Housing Initiative Approval of Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement and Investment Plan:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 26, 2025, to:

i)    approve the Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and His Majesty the King in right of Ontario as represented by The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for the provision of funding under the Canada-Ontario Community Housing Initiative and the Ontario Priorities Housing Initiative for the 2025 - 2026, 2026 - 2027, and 2027 - 2028 fiscal years, as appended to the above-noted by-law as Schedule ‘1’ (“Agreement”);

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

iii)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate, to approve and execute any future amending agreements to the above-noted agreement;

iv)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate, to approve and execute the Investment Plan, including any amendments, required for each fiscal year under the above-noted agreement; and, 

v)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate, to sign all reports required under the above-noted agreement.

Motion Passed

2.6   SS-2025-194: Single Source Procurement of Zamboni Level Ice Systems

2025-08-11 SR SS-2025-194 Single Source Procurement of Zamboni Level Ice Systems - Part 1

2025-08-11 SR SS-2025-194 Single Source Procurement of Zamboni Level Ice Systems - Part 2

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated August 11, 2025, related to SS-2025-194 Single Source Procurement of Zamboni Level Ice Systems:

a)    in accordance with Section 14.4(e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to enter into negotiations with Zamboni Company Ltd., 38 Morton Ave. E, Brantford, ON, N3R 2N5 for the single source purchase of two (2) Level Ice Systems, for the price of $58,570.90 (excluding HST);

b)    the approval in the above part a), BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London negotiating satisfactory pricing, terms, and conditions with Zamboni Company Ltd.;

c)    the funding for this procurement BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “A”; and,

d)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the necessary administrative acts in relation to the procurement described above.

Motion Passed

2.8   SS-2025-193 London Fire Department Single Source Procurement of a Service Vehicle

2025-08-11 SR SS-2025-193 London Fire Dept Procurement of a Service Vehicle - Part 1

2025-08-11 SR SS-2025-193 London Fire Dept Procurement of a Service Vehicle - Part 2

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated August 11, 2025, related to SS-2025-193 London Fire Department Single Source Procurement of a Service Vehicle:

a)    in accordance with Section 14.4(g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Fire Administration BE AUTHORIZED to enter into negotiations with City Commercial Truck Equipment, 1005 Pattullo Avenue, Woodstock, Ontario, N4V 1C8, for pricing for an outfitted service vehicle for the London Fire Department;

b)    the approval of the above part a), BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London negotiating satisfactory prices, terms, and conditions; and entering into a purchasing agreement with Commercial Truck Equipment to purchase the Service Vehicle;

c)    the financing for this purchase BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “A”;

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

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

Motion Passed

2.9   Standard form Agreement for Approval of Infrastructure Grant Application, and Conditional Approval to Enter into a “Child Care and Early Years Funding Agreement”

2025-08-11 SR Standard Form Agmt for Child Care and Early Years Funding Agreement

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated August 11, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on August 26, 2025, to:

a)    approve the standard form Agreement for Approval of Infrastructure Grant Application and Conditional Approval to Enter into a Child Care and Early Years Funding Agreement (“Agreement”), substantially in the form as appended to the above-noted by-law as Schedule “1”, is authorized and approved as the standard form agreement to be used for pre-approval of infrastructure grant applications and child care and early years funding;

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

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

ii)    approve and execute Agreements based on the standard form agreement authorized and approved in this by-law;

it being noted that the power of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, and their written designate, to act under the above-noted by-law are subject to the following:

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed

2.7   Thames Pool Update

2025-08-11 SR Thames Pool Update

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated August 11, 2025, related to the Thames Pool Update:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consider the feasibility of Basil Grover Park as a potential option for a future multi-use community centre, including an indoor pool, based on the recommendations coming out the updated Parks and Recreation Master Plan; and,

b)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that a communication, dated August 7, 2025, from Councillor S. Franke, with respect to this matter, was received.

Additional Votes:

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That part a) of the motion BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That part b) of the motion BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Proposed Changes to the W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program

2025-08-11 SR Proposed Changes to the W12A Landfill CEMMP

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated August 11, 2025, related to Proposed Changes to the W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program:

a)    the above-noted staff report, including the background information on the history of the W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program, BE RECEIVED;

b)    the summary of proposed changes to the W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program, as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “A”, BE RECEIVED;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to send the above-noted staff report to the W12A Landfill Public Liaison Committee and notify property owners within 2 kilometres of the landfill that the report is available for review and comment; and,

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to hold a public participation meeting with respect to the proposed changes to W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee;

it being noted that a presentation, as appended to the Added Agenda, from J. Stanford, was received with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.2   Seasonal Time Period of Overnight Parking Bans in Comparable Municipalities

2025-08-11 Sub. Overnight Parking Bans - J. Pribil

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication, dated July 9, 2025, from Councillor J. Pribil, related to Seasonal Time Period of Overnight Parking Bans in Comparable Municipalities:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the September 29, 2025 meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with an information report regarding the seasonal time period of overnight parking bans in comparable municipalities, including the rationale for the seasonal duration of London’s current overnight parking ban, as well as potential amendments to reduce the time period outlined in the existing by-law, including consideration of a revised timeframe from November 15 to March 31; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward the option to eliminate the 15 day limit on overnight parking passes as part of the report back with respect to this matter; it being noted that individuals would continue to register a vehicle that is parked overnight during the overnight parking ban.

Additional Votes:

Moved by Mayor J. Morgan

Seconded by J. Pribil

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

The Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward the option to eliminate the 15 day limit on overnight parking passes as part of the report back with respect to this matter; it being noted that individuals would continue to register a vehicle that is parked overnight during the overnight parking ban.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by P. Cuddy

The motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.3   Business Licensing By-law as it relates to Short Term Rental Accommodations

2025-08-11 Sub. Business Licensing By-law - J. Pribil

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication, dated July 31, 2025, from Councillor J. Pribil, related to the Business Licensing By-law as it relates to Short Term Rental Accommodations:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review Schedule 21 of the Business Licensing Bylaw as it relates to Short Term Rental Accommodations (STRAs), and to report back in Q1 2026 on the following:

i)     licensing fees, charges, and penalties imposed by other Ontario municipalities for STRAs;

ii)     the application and rates of the Municipal Accommodation Tax (MAT) in municipalities with active STRA regulations;

iii)     enforcement tools, fines, and administrative penalties used to address non-compliance; and,

iv)     best practices for cost recovery and compliance monitoring, as well as strategies to minimize community impacts such as parking space limitations and density control measures including minimum distance requirements to help preserve neighbourhood character and prevent clusters of STRs in low density residential areas;

it being noted that this review should include recommendations for amendments to Schedule 21 or related by-laws to improve regulatory alignment, equity, and operational efficiency;

it being further noted that a verbal delegation from D. Lanteigne-Mignault, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the delegation request from D. Lanteigne-Mignault, as appended to the Added Agenda, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

4.4   Protection of Animals Left Unattended in Motor Vehicles

2025-08-11 Sub. Protection of Animals Left in Motor Vehicles - S. Franke

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back by end of Q2 2026 to the Community and Protective Services Committee with recommendations on the protection of animals left unattended in a motor vehicle, including but not limited to amendments to existing or a new municipal by-law;

it being noted that the Community and Protective Services Committee received the following communications with respect to these matters:

  •    a communication dated July 28, 2025, from Councillors S. Franke and D. Ferreira;

  •    a communication dated July 29, 2025, from Humane Society of London and Middlesex; 

  •    a communication dated August 7, 2025, from Paws United Dog Rescue; and, 

  •    a communication dated August 7, 2025, from E. Schwob.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

4.5   Enhancements to Dog Licensing and Control By‑law – Focus on Public Safety Risk Dogs

2025-08-11 Sub. Dog Licensing and Control By-law - S. Franke

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication dated July 28, 2025 from Councillors S. Franke and D. Ferreira - Enhancements to Dog Licensing and Control By law – Focus on Public Safety Risk Dogs:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back by end of Q3 2026 to the Community and Protective Services Committee with recommendations on potential enhancements to the Dog Licensing and Control By  law, specifically as it relates to dogs that have been determined to pose a risk to public safety; and,

b)    the Mayor BE REQUESTED to write a letter to the Solicitor General, with respect to this matter, to suggest changes to provincial legislation related to dangerous dogs and public safety;

it being noted that the Community and Protective Services Committee received the following communications with respect to these matters:

  •     a communication dated July 29, 2025, from Humane Society of London and Middlesex; 

  •     a communication dated August 5, 2025, from K. Bendikas.

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by D. Ferreira

The motion BE AMENDED to add a new part to read as follows:

The Mayor BE REQUESTED to write a letter to the solicitor general, with respect to this matter, to suggest changes to provincial legislation related to dangerous dogs and public safety.

Motion Passed (3 to 1)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That part a) of the motion BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That part b) of the motion BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (3 to 1)

4.6   Residential Rental Unit Licensing By-law

2025-08-11 Sub. Residential Rental Unit Licensing By-law - P. Cuddy

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication, dated August 1, 2025, related to the Residential Rental Unit Licensing By-law:

a)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to report back to the Community and Protective Services Committee with advice to the Committee and Council about the advisability of amending the Residential Rental Unit Licensing By-law to require an Owner under that By-law to display their name, a contact phone number and the number of occupants permitted to be residing in the unit, noting that the report should include recommendations for compliance with Council Policies including the Public Notice Policy with respect to Licensing By-law, and the Accountability and Transparency to the Public Policy; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Community and Protective Services Committee with the potential of including signage which could include information about whether or not the property and the units in the property are in compliance with municipal standards.

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to report back to the Community and Protective Services Committee with advice to the Committee and Council about the advisability of amending the Residential Rental Unit Licensing By-law to require an Owner under that By-law to display their name, a contact phone number and the number of occupants permitted to be residing in the unit, noting that the report should include recommendations for compliance with Council Policies including the Public Notice Policy with respect to Licensing By-law, and the Accountability and Transparency to the Public Policy.

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

The Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back with the potential of including signage which could include information about whether or not the property and the units in the property are in compliance with municipal standards.

Motion Passed (3 to 1)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   (ADDED) Confidential

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the Community and Protective Services Committee convene In Closed Session for the purpose of considering the following:

6.1    Solicitor-Client Privilege

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, with respect to Enhancements to the Dog Licensing and Control By-law - Focus on Public Safety Risk Dogs.

Motion Passed (3 to 1)

The Community and Protective Services Committee convened In Closed Session from 2:44 PM to 2:49 PM.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting Adjourned at 3:58 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (2 hours, 32 minutes)

[19:45] All right, I will be starting the 11th meeting of the Community Protective Services Committee. I’d like to welcome everybody in council chambers, staff in front of me, members in the gallery of the public. Members of council and visiting members, I’ll recognize you in a second. Please check the city website for additional meeting details upon information. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Lina Peiwak, and Adwandran. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home.

[20:21] The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit today, as representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The city of London is committed to making every effort possible and to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request, to make a specific meeting to this meeting, to make a specific request to this meeting. Please contact CPSC@london.ca or dial 519-661-2. 489-extension-2425.

[20:58] I’d like to recognize members of the committee in chambers. I have, to my right, Councillor Cuddy from the east, to my right, Councillor Jerry Pribble, to the north, to my right, Councillor Sam Trusso, to the central north area myself, and Councillor McAllister is going to be joining us in an hour’s time, so he’ll be a little bit late, he’s given me notice. Visiting members, I have Councillor Krenn Robin, to from the north-ish, north-west, to my left, from the south, Councillor Palosa, and south-central Councillor Frank.

[21:38] I have online, the deputy mayor from the east, Sean Lewis, and I believe the mayor is on the site today, or online today, that city at large. All right, looking for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. I see none. All right, so that leads us to our consents. I have a few, I have no pull requests for my consent items, so I’m just gonna look to members of committee if they do wanna pull anything. Okay, I do know that there’s some questions on these consents, so I’m just a second.

[22:22] I’m gonna get a motion to approve the consents, but I am gonna go through one at a time, just to see if there’s any questions on the consent. Councillor Frank, yes. Thank you, although I’m not a member of the committee, I was hoping to pull 2.7 as I submitted a draft motion. Looking for a member to pull that, Councillor Pribble, Councillor Cuddy, okay. I can pull 2.7, that’s a Thames pool update. So I’m looking for a motion to move, the conson items two, one through two, two, six. I also moved here. You’ll move in the rest, okay.

[22:54] Seconded by Councillor Pribble, okay. So that’s been moved and seconded. Okay, let’s go through the report, so, and I, like I said, I’m gonna go through all the items, except for 2.7, just for potential, any questions or anything like that.

[23:32] So 2.1, that’s the third report of the accessibility community advisory committee. Any questions, comments? That’s 2.2 is next. That’s the fourth report of the environmental stewardship and action community advisory committee. Questions or comments? Councillor Pribble, please go ahead. Thank you, my kid, comment. This advisory committee is requesting an approval from this committee in terms of some budgetary requirements. So I think that’s a thing that we should be dealing with now. That is correct.

[24:03] It does have some recommendations from that. We can discuss that item. And I just do want to make note that all the consign items that are for us right now, every single one where we ask questions does count towards your five minutes of time, just so you know, so I’ll give the chair back or give the microphone back to you. Okay, if you look at it, I think I don’t have it from me, but second or third page and they are requesting to approve their budget proposals and also use last year’s to this year’s budget for those stickers and other informational material.

[24:43] So I think that’s a thing that we should be approving now or discussing if anyone has any objections or if you just approve it. Thank you, Councillor. So the motion and eScribe has been pulled out to approve. It can be approved here and then resolved at council. Okay, so I would like to move the recommendation. It’s part of the consent. It is moved already. Okay, looking for any other speakers or comments for this item 2.2. Okay, moving to 2.3.

[25:19] That’s the municipal request from within the service area to access the W12A landfill for waste disposal. I know Councillor Palose has some questions, but I need to look at members of committee first. So, Councillor Pribble, please go ahead. Thank you, sir, the chair to the staff. I just see in the report, it states that we don’t have this policy in place by in terms of other municipalities. Is this gonna be potentially on a regular basis or is this gonna be at HAG or how do we control it if we are approaching the future from other municipalities? Thank you, Councillor, Mr. Stanford.

[25:54] Through the chair, at this point, over the last handful of years, we’ve had no municipality approach us with respect to the ability of coming to W12A landfill site. Should that occur, this is the process that we would actually follow through, and each one would be reported on to committee and council. So, there would be a way to track very easily the number of municipalities that have not only requested, but were also approved to come to W12A landfill site. Thank you, Council.

[26:26] And from the report, I just want to make clear as well, do we have actually, let’s say if we have an issue with the capacity, can we actually refuse it? Or under the provincial law, we actually, as a more of a major area, municipality, if it’s this capacity, we would have to actually accept it and we have no choice of refusing it. Thank you, Mr. Stanford. Through the chair, it will be a two-part answer. Municipalities within the service area, and there’s five counties that would be eligible.

[27:00] Council would have full control over whether they come in or not. What can occur though, under ministerial order, that would be the provincial government, should there be, for example, a landfill crisis in the province of Ontario, they do have the authority, because they have the powers over the landfill site with respect to the environmental compliance approval, they could make a decision on our behalf. That was not satisfactory to council. That is the powers they do have, but based on our understanding, the provincial government has not had to go that route for, I believe, well over 25 years.

[27:36] Thank you, Council. Thank you very much, no more questions. Thank you, Councilor. Looking to members of committee, and I do understand we can go through all of the consent items, but I did break them down, but I will just go quickly through, ‘cause I do know that there was some questions, so I just wanted to make it easier for everybody. But I do know that there’s no members of committee that need to speak to this, so I’m gonna go to Councilor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A couple of questions on this one, and I do appreciate Mr. Stanford’s time ahead of time. Realizing we haven’t had a report on this before, and it will help govern it, going forward to your request come in.

[28:15] Under 1.3, so on page 11, being the city of London Rule, and outlining what decisions we might make for types of material that we might allow. At what time would that decision be made? Is that something we do now, or is that in the future should a municipality make a request? We could have that discussion. Realizing London’s done great efforts at 60% waste diversion, doing our green pin program residents have been happy about trying to mitigate some smells and odors and turkey vultures and some other concerns are like, if we’re doing the good job of diverting waste, are we gonna allow others just to bring all their compostable materials here into our landfill?

[28:55] Thank you, Councilor, Mr. Stanford. Through the Chair, on page 12 of the report at the top, we do have actually a specific clause that addresses this item, and it talks about mandated programs from the provincial government for waste diversion would have to be in place in any municipality that wishes to come to the W-12A landfill site. And then we also have a part B that it’s one to have a program in place or programs in place. There has to be active promotion of those programs and active participation in those programs, so they’re not just a sleight of hand type things.

[29:35] So they’re active involvement. So we would use these as our guiding principles, should a municipality wish to approach us. We would do a deeper dive into their waste diversion programs, but we’re not recommending anything above mandated programs by the provincial government. It’d be a little more difficult to figure out how to really regulate something that there really is no benchmark for that. Thank you, Councilor. Thank you. And I’ll question, I’m on page 17, under guiding principles 4.1B. And it cites the portion that tipping fee revenue will continue to go into the landfill community enhancement and mitigation measures program.

[30:14] Realizing later in today’s reports, under proposed changes to the W-12A landfill community, community enhancement and mitigation of programs staff is looking at enacting an area enhancement fund and an enhanced public property maintenance program from tipping fees as well. Would this be in conflict or would encompass those other programs as well? Just since it’s a schedule for a by-law. Thank you, Councilor. Go ahead. Through the chair, we would view this as being in addition to, this is not to replace anything.

[30:48] So if waste comes from other municipalities through approval, we would have the Community Mitigative Measures Fund popped up the way it is currently being topped up. But we’d also then wish to allocate 10 additional dollars that could be brought into any of the other funds that are listed here for additional work around the W-12A landfill. Thank you, Councilor. Thank you, through you to staff. Is this report going out to the public liaison committee for the W-12A landfill?

[31:20] Or how would they be made aware of this? Just, I know they have questions about things being tracked in and what we’re doing and when we’re doing it. Just looking for that flow of information out to the community. Thank you, Mr. Stanford. Through the chair, all members of the PLC have received a copy of this report by email. They’ve been made aware of it. They’ve received the agenda as well for the whole committee. Because this is something, we actually are meeting with the PLC in about a week and a half’s time. So happy to raise it then, but it is not something that we’ve actually put out for consultation in part because this is something where there’s really no active files.

[31:57] It’s actually getting Council future ready in a case. So, but if there are comments that come forward, these are the types of things there that could be reviewed as part of a number of different opportunities to come before committee and Council. Thank you, Council. Thank you, I appreciate knowing that residents already have it and that will be a agenda item at the upcoming PLC meeting as I do hope to attend, assuming that we’re back from email in time. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. For this item, any other comments, questions? Okay, I’ll go to the next. So the next is 2.4 order management technology update and single source in virus suite limited.

[32:35] Any comments or questions from members of committee? Councilor Preble, go ahead. You have three minutes, 32 seconds. Just a quick comment, strongly recommend this. And again, based on the meetings we had with the committee and I’m quite sure the Councilor from the work follows that she would support it 100% as well. So strongly supporting it to continue this program. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. Members are visiting members or online, okay? Next is the Canada Ontario Community Housing Initiative and Ontario Priorities Housing Initiative approval of Ontario transfer payments, agreements, and investments.

[33:12] Looking for comments from members of committee, busy members, online, okay? Next item, the single source procurement of the Zamboni level ice systems. Looking for any comments or questions. Thames 4 has been pulled, so that leaves us a 2.8. That is the single source London Fire Department procurement of a service vehicle. Looking for comments from members of committee.

[33:45] Councillor Preble, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff. It’s actually a combination, 2.8, 2.6. And I had two questions. In the 2.6, we have in the recommendation aid, the entire amount, 2.8. We do not have it, but then in the sorts of funding, there is an amount that’s listed, 258, $259,000. So I just want to verify because it’s not in this summary if that’s the amount that we are discussing. Thank you, Councillor Smith. Thank you.

[34:17] And through the chair, specifically in 2.8, that is correct. We will go forward and negotiate the final price. So this will be an upset limit for the upset outfitted vehicle. So the next step is to go back to, can you negotiate the price? And then that will be what we sign off for. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, and one follow up in 2.8. We do have a clause E when we do, when we authorize the mayor and clerk, 2.6. We do not have it. And I was wondering if it’s the only difference is because somebody may be the amount.

[34:51] Thank you, Ms. Smith. Thank you, that is correct. Thank you very much, no more questions. Okay, Councillor, let’s call for that. Okay, that leads us to our last item for the consent. That’s 2.9, the standard form agreement for approval of infrastructure grant application and conditional approval to enter into a child care and early years funding agreement, looking for members of committee for any comments or questions, visiting members online.

[35:30] Okay, I think we can call the question for the consent. Closing the vote, the motion carries 5-0. Okay, so that leads us to schedule items, which we have none. So the next would be items for direction. We’re gonna start with 4.1.

[36:02] I believe we have a staff presentation. So just conferring with staff that you’re ready for that and let me know and I’ll let you know when you have your five minutes, when your five minutes begins. It looks like Mr. Stanford is ready to go, so.

[36:38] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’ve got a rather short presentation, just to highlight the key elements that are in the report before you was 4.1. And just to make sure we’re all on the same page from a location perspective, W-12A landfill site is about seven kilometers south on Wellington, south of the 4.1. Or if you’re heading along 4.1, you would be heading east on Manning and about three kilometers would get you to the landfill gate. And as you zoom in closer, this is in your package. The landfill site is in the dark red line. You can see the slashed red line with a dark black line.

[37:17] That includes the buffer area around the landfill site. The dark red line actually is the same disposal area as the previous approval, ‘cause we’re doing a vertical increase as part of the expansion. You then see a slashed area in red with a thin red line around it. That’s referred to as the resource recovery area. Then after that, there’s just a number of other features around the W-12A landfill site, just for your benefit. And of course, these maps are in your package. The package that is before you today has been sort of in development over a number of years.

[37:55] We’ve gone out for public consultation twice. We’ve also chatted with our public liaison committee on a regular basis, basically since 2000 on matters that are important to the community. So what we actually have before you today is the first major review since 2009 of our community enhancement and the mitigated measures program. The following slides, the ones in green represent new initiatives that were not in the previous program. One of the most important ones, I believe, is that we are recommending a review every four years of this program, not waiting the almost 20 years that we have waited this time, or 15 years.

[38:37] We believe as a landfill develops, concerns may occur or arrive, new concerns, or concerns that were perhaps, at that point in time, didn’t quite develop the way people thought. So a four-year review, we believe, is quite important, particularly because the landfill site, the expansion is planned for 25 years. We also believe with all the initiatives that are being added into this package that we come back on an annual basis to committee, report on the various projects and highlight what has occurred for the expenditures that are being proposed.

[39:13] Couple of items that you see now in the dark, color, black color. These are items that are in the existing package, but in the case of this one on the screen right now, we have made some minor adjustments to what is in the current program on how we actually measure the rings around the landfill site. We’re just making some minor adjustments associated with what’s now a slightly different buffer zone. The property value protection program, there were seven homes that were previously in the program that were part of a visual screening procedure where they would only be eligible after a report was completed to determine through the visual screening process, whether there in fact was a visual challenge associated with the property looking at the landfill site.

[40:03] We’ve decided since we are going up that that screening process should be removed as a result seven properties now. Excuse me, seven properties qualify for the property value protection program. And what that program is all about is that should they sell in the future and they’re part of the right or first refusal program, which is the next initiative on your screen. The municipality has first opportunity of purchasing that property should we desire or we pay if there’s any difference between real estate appraisals on the property or protecting the value of the property if the landfill site were not there.

[40:41] So that applies to a number of homes. We also have what’s referred to as the Community Mitigative Measures Fund, one minute, okay. And as part of that, we collect money from all tons that come into the landfill site and that money sits in a pot. That pot is now at 1.3 million. We are recommending some changes that it be capped at 1 million and some of those funds move to a couple of the other initiatives that you’ll see shortly. We’re recommending no changes for the waste disposal. Residents south of the 401 do have access to up to 200 kilograms per week.

[41:16] It’s about a 40,000 per year benefit. PLC, we are recommending a number of changes to the terms of reference to make it very modern. From a terms of reference perspective, we’re also recommending that the committee only meets four times per year instead of six because a new group has been assigned to the city, a landfill operating committee through our environmental approvals process. We must set this up and it must include indigenous communities. So we’re still staying with six meetings, but we’re basically dividing them across two committees.

[41:51] And there will be a relationship between the two committees through the chair and vice chair of the PLC. We’ll be asking and extending an invitation for them to sit on this particular operating committee with the indigenous communities. And the last two items then are very new funds. One to increase the amount of investment in the area, south of the 401. This would be controlled by committee and council. It would be programs put in place with your knowledge and reported on each year. And it would be used basically to help encourage other investments in the area to create more of a community environment.

[42:26] And then the very last program would be an enhanced public property maintenance program near the landfill site. Many of the areas are sort of our rural service frequency. We would look to increase that wherever we can to address some of the property management concerns that have been brought to our attention. And Mr. Chair, my last slide to keep within probably five and a half minutes. Thank you is just, this is the start of the discussion. It is coming to you today to release to the community. There’s a meeting with the PLC, the Public Liaison Committee on April 21st. After council on the 26th, we would actually send this out and make sure residents within two kilometers of the landfill site were aware that this process is underway and how to participate in that.

[43:10] And then a series of additional dates would be selected. Thanks, Mr. Chair, for a few extra seconds. Thank you, Mr. Sanford, it’s not a problem. Okay, I am looking for a motion to be moved, moved by Councillor Cudi, seconded by myself. Okay, Councillor Pribble. Okay, looking for comments, questions. I do have Councillor Palazzo, she has requested questions, but I’m gonna go to members of the committee first, and then I will look towards you once I’ve exhausted those. So members of committee, any questions or comments?

[43:44] Councillor Pribble. Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff. Excuse me, Mr. Sanford, it says on the slight 28 properties currently, has the city practiced or purchased any properties during the last so many years? Or would these be the only 28 you, Mr. Stanford? Through the Chair, I think our total purchase is around 22 and there may have been a few properties purchased that were just prior to 2006.

[44:17] So the number that you’re suggesting, I would just have to flip into the report, is around that number. There have not been any recent properties purchased, but these are items that do come up from time to time, and we have a procedure to bring that forward to committee and council. Thank you, Councillor. Okay, thank you. Slide seven, the title, is it no change or no charge? Thank you, Mr. Stanford. Through the Chair, it is no charge, and the reason we have it enlisted is that, is that the residents within that area are allowed to deliver to the landfill site up to 200 kilograms of garbage per week without charge.

[44:58] Thank you, Councillor. Thank you for that, and I do have some questions regarding timelines, but I believe that probably this board council, they’ll have the same questions. If she doesn’t, I’ll go back. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Other members of committee, questions, comments? Okay, Councillor Palazzo, please go ahead. Thank you. Councillor Pribble could have kept using up his time, ‘cause now I’m meeting up my time. Question three to staff, again, I appreciate Mr. Stanford’s time ahead of time. For me, what MPAC is to the city for tax collection, this is the version for waste.

[45:32] I’ve been waiting for this report since 2018 from the community, so really appreciate that it would be an ongoing, more frequent updates to committee and council to understand this. I’ll start under the recommendation part C, looking at two kilometers for a notification range for the report. We had this type of issue with the BIO solids report that sometimes out there, the city already owns a lot of the land that we bought as a buffer around it, looking to see if that two kilometers can start from not just the landfill property, but the property that we actually own.

[46:05] Sometimes we just notify ourselves, ‘cause we brought up the property. Question three to staff. Thank you, Councillor. Mr. Stanford. Through the chair, we’re happy to extend that extra distance to make sure we’re including everyone. We’re looking at in the order of about 250 properties that we’ve previously been engaged with as part of the environmental assessment, so happy to extend that a little further. Thank you, Councillor. I’m not serving on this committee. Would I need a motion? Or can staff just make that change in this case? Or if not, I’ll bring a motion through council.

[46:39] I’ll look to staff before I ask the committee for a motion. Do you need a motion for that? Or is that something you can do? Mr. Chair, we’d be happy just to include that. We prefer to have a broader audience on this one than to hear from them in a different way, so we’re happy to do that. Okay, thank you, Councillor. Thank you, question. We discussed it earlier as we look at the mitigation and the impacts this type of facility has out there. As potentially, I just want the committee and the community to be aware that as council is looking at potentially moving a biosolid processing facility out across the street from this facility.

[47:20] If any of those mitigation map for shirts, ‘cause we’re just gonna be shipping human waste instead of garbage could be part of the catchment area, that conversation, realizing that that plan with Mr. Oderkirk is also a ways out, and now this report will come back every so many years to us of just, would that be part of the conversation or how to have part of that being looped in? Thank you, Councillor, Mr. Stanford. Thank you, Mr. Chair, through this process, we wish to, as staff, focus on the landfill site, ‘cause that is what we know the most, and we’ve been there since 1977.

[47:56] So, essentially, we know about the neighbors, we know about the community. Knowing that anything to do with the biosolids facility in the future is something to come forward between for Committee and Council, and it is a number of years out. That would be actually a very good example of why we wanna come back about every four years. These are things that we’re just not aware of right now. So, one thing we can commit to though, as we will hear, I just know that during this process, about that item, we will keep track of that, but I’d rather, unless there’s a change at Committee and Council, not have that the focus of this particular one, because I see that as being important, very important, but not part of resolving this one and getting this one completed.

[48:40] Thank you, Mr. Stanford, Councilor Palosa. Thank you, and I recognize that both are mandated and governed differently through the province. I also recognize that someone’s gonna have a well-deserved retirement soon, and I was afraid of losing some institutional knowledge if we didn’t have that conversation publicly, as we move forward, ‘cause Jay served many years, and the residents are very familiar with them, and I know that not all their concerns get written down, or come as formal motion, so I do appreciate that. I appreciate that this is gonna go back out to the community. You’ll see that there’s a long list. On page 232 of some other feedback, I would say my only concern, I appreciate that there’ll be other mitigation funds that for area improvement that you’ve seen in area enhancement funds, and item 11 being the Enhanced Public Property Maintenance Program, that garbage does come off trucks, or people ditch things as they drive out there, that residents do feel that impact.

[49:38] My only concern would be, I recognize that their fund is over a million dollars, that it’s at 1.3 that staff said, that the community, I’m fine with it being capped at a million, just the community and the PLC have an opportunity to spend that 0.3, as our project said, I’m sure they could be enticed to do a vote on it and get rolling to serve the community well, versus that funds just being removed, that’s all, my comments, thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Pribble, you have lots of time, four minutes, 29 seconds, go ahead.

[50:11] Thank you, sir, the chair to the staff, and when I look at it, by the way, I do see this personally from not being a neighbor, they’re not living there as a very positive step forward, but I did wanna ask, I also see very valuable the going into the four year review of this, so I think that’s a great positive recommendation. My question is, these recommendations, were they discussed or presented to the committee prior, and if they have not, will there be any opportunity before the council as they have a meeting, but what process would, if they haven’t been consulted or informed prior in the discussions, will they have the opportunity to do anything before the council, thank you.

[50:54] Thank you, Councillor. I go to Mr. Stanford. Through the chair, we’ve been listening to the committee for many, many years, so we believe that we’ve captured many of their comments, and probably not all, but many, as we package this all together. So we have not specifically gone back to them, but this package, our goal was to listen and then come to you and council first. Between now and council, I’m not sure what opportunities exist, I rely on the deputy city clerk to assist in that regard, but part of all this has been set up to go out to the public with complete information and other input from committee and council.

[51:36] So that is how this has been staged, and that’s why a planned public participation meeting before you is all part of this to make sure that those opportunities are not lost, in fact, they’re encouraged by laying out a framework like this. Thank you, thank you very much. No more questions, thank you. Okay, last call, members of committee, visiting members. Online, okay, let’s call the question. How’s the votes, yes?

[52:17] Closing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero. That leads us to our second item. We have a motion from councilor Pribble. That’s with respect to the seasonal time period of overnight parking bans in comparable municipality. So I’ll look to councilor Pribble for a motion and look for a seconder. Should I speak to the motion now, or are you gonna look for the seconder first? Council, if you just put the motion on the floor, get your seconder, and then I’ll go right to you to speak to it.

[52:52] Perfect, I would like to put, I would like to table this motion at this time. Okay, moved by councilor Pribble, seconder by councilor Cuddy. Motion’s on the floor, looking for speakers list, and I’ll go to councilor Pribble first, please go ahead. Thank you chair and colleagues, on September 29th, the staff is gonna be coming back with us on updates on certain parking policies. And I discuss this prior, this can be included in the same timeframe, and I would like us to revisit some other municipalities, they have cut the winter period to a shorter time, and I would like the staff, currently we are not approving any changes, currently we are approving a motion for the staff to come back to us, and to revisit the options of shortening, and to include the consideration specific time, November 15th to March 31st.

[53:48] Now, specifying November 15th to March 31st, I would really would like us to consider it, having said that, it’s not kind of only this, or currently what we have. So that’s the motion, that’s on the table currently, thank you. Thank you, Councillor, I have the mayor online with his hand up, so I will go to Mayor Morgan, please go ahead. Yes, thank you chair, and thank you to Councillor Pribble for bringing this forward, having been on council since 2014, I would say this is something that has come up multiple times, through the course of my time on council, and I think it’s appropriate to review this, we’ve made a number of changes over the years, and I mean, sometimes those changes have gone well, sometimes they haven’t, sometimes we’ve looked at street level exemptions, and I think we’ve been building towards something that works for most Londoners.

[54:39] The only addition that I would have to Councillor Pribble’s motion is, if we’re looking at getting some information back, one of the things that I’ve heard over my time as a Councillor in the second term, and then some of the information that comes into my office is the idea of passes for only 15 days, seems like an unnecessary restriction. And I think that one of the options that should be brought back by our staff is what it looks like to eliminate those, keeping in place all of the other street-by-street level restrictions that may exist within the current structure.

[55:13] The only thing I’d be interested in looking further into is just getting rid of the 15 days. I would still want people to actually register so that we can put out information about having people get off the street when the plows need to go out. But I don’t understand the arbitrary number of 15, and I think a lot of people who’ve given feedback to me don’t understand it either. So I don’t know if I need to add an amendment to say, let’s look into this too when staff report back so we can see what those changes look like and be in a position to make those changes, should the committee agree at that time. But that’s something that I’d like to add into Councillor Pribbles’ direction.

[55:48] And I’d be happy to be happy to make an amendment if I need to see if there’s committee support for that. And again, I’m not saying we make that decision today, I’m saying we bring that information back so that we can make that decision when we get the report back as one of the possible options. But if we don’t make it as an option, we’re not gonna have a chance to make that adjustment in time for this year. Thank you, Mayor. I see Councillor Pribbles hands up for a second, I believe. I’m just gonna say that I’m certainly in support of that. So I will either, I will either second the mayor’s proposal, or if it’s a friendly one, the clerk can incorporate it.

[56:25] No, I’m seeing no. So that means I will second it, yes. Okay, we have a seconder for the amendment. I just wanna go to staff to confer, to ensure that this is, you need an amendment for that, and that you can do that work within the timeframe that we see. Through the chair, I’m just gonna revisit this wording for a moment. So we are gonna be completing a holistic review here, so happy to consider that as part of this review.

[56:58] If you have anything that’s very specific, so what I was hearing from the mayor was actually looking at eliminating the passes. So if that’s something you want us to consider, just so that it’s very clear, I would suggest adding that language. Okay, I’m gonna just read it out, the amendment, and I’m gonna go to the mayor and council privilege for just consideration, and we’ll go from there. So I’m just gonna read out an amendment that I have here that’s been drafted up by the clerk, and it’s that the motion be amended to include a new part as follows, that civic administration be directed to eliminate the 15 day limit on overnight parking advance of the 2025, 2026 winter season.

[57:36] It being noted that individuals would continue to register a vehicle that is parked overnight during the overnight parking ban. So just looking for the mayor and. Yeah, so I don’t think it needs that descriptive to have civic administration eliminated. I think civic administration bring forward the option to do so when they report back. So we’d make the decision at that time, not in this moment. So it’s really just including that as Mr. Mathers just described as part of the review so that we would have that as a possible option should we want to proceed at that time.

[58:09] And again, we can have a debate, get some feedback, and people will weigh in their opinions. It’s something that I’ve heard people ask for us to consider. So I’m just looking for it to be part of the report back and the option there on the table for us, not decide in this moment at this time. Okay, thank you. Just give us a second. I’m gonna read out what the clerk strapped it up while you’re speaking there.

[58:43] So the motion be amended to include that civic administration be directed to eliminate the 15 day limit on overnight parking passes as part of the report back with respect to this matter. It being noted that individuals would continue to register a vehicle that is parked overnight during the overnight parking. That sounds fine to me. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. And seconded by Councilor Perbal. Okay, Councilor Perbal, you had your hand up. I saw Councilor Palazzo’s hand up. I’m just gonna go to members of committee first and I’ll be with you in a second. No questions?

[59:14] Okay, and Councilor Raman, you do wanna speak? Okay, I’m gonna go to Councilor Palazzo first. Please go ahead, Councilor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’ll say maybe this is one of the problems of working with staff behind the scenes and reports not coming forward quickly enough had been working with Mr. Catolic for some time regarding this issue. At that time it was requested that I hold off two said report. Now this is contrary to what I was working on with staff. So I guess I learned a lesson there. I also had residents questioning the 15 day pass. Some of them had a large surplus of vehicles and they would just keep rotating who was on the street.

[59:54] And then they’d run out of 15 passes for each vehicle. And so obviously many vehicles per that driveway, concerns were still around the parking of the vehicles on the street that they would all be on the street and snow clearing happens not just at night but throughout the day that those vehicles would already be there. Part of the concerns Mr. Catolic was looking into was to expand the 15 passes ‘cause people still need to park somewhere but looking to make sure that we still did cost recovery ‘cause someone needs to go out, inspect it, run the system, issue the passes and give out notices that was part of my pass too is making sure that the program could be self-sustaining as someone had to monitor it in addition to people who don’t follow it or didn’t have the correct passes to still go to do it.

[1:00:38] So my concern with the motion is that it’s just to eliminate it versus expand the program or looking at any cost recovery. So I don’t know if staff could speak on that if I know there’s a different direction on the floor now or not, I don’t know where Mr. Catolic’s information was. I was supposed to be coming back shortly ‘cause I didn’t see it before the departure. Thank you, Councillor. I did hear a question embedded in there. So I’m gonna go to staff to see what staff’s responses. Yeah, through the chair. So yes, I am aware that there was work already underway to bring forward a report.

[1:01:15] So I think that’s why it’s very timely to come forward because it would allow us to bring something forward before we get to that November 1st deadline. So there has already been work that’s been completed. So that’s very complimentary to it. As far as cost recovery, anything as you’ve noted that these passes are free. So there isn’t a cost recovery for that portion at this point, so we would need to make sure that whatever we bring forward has a discussion on the cost associated with moving us forward. Thank you, Councillor.

[1:01:49] Thank you, I appreciate that being laid out for a point in consideration of Committee and Council. Should the time come? My only last follow-up question is, I know Deputy Mayor Lewis had worked to change the dates to expand the overnight street parking last time at Council and that was well received by residents. And at that time, we were told that the contracts for our overnight street parking coincide with when our snow clearing contracts are issued and then they follow the dates. Looking to see if we’ve already issued the snow clearing contract this day or when that happens just if we’re trying to align our dates.

[1:02:22] And I think I was trying to think if there’s also signs coming into the city saying when you can’t do seasonal parking on streets, ‘cause if there is, we’d have to do a whole sign replacement as well that would also come across. Thank you, Councillor, good questions. I’m gonna go to Ms. Shear on that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Unfortunately, I don’t have the date of the snow clearing contract with me. I certainly can provide that in advance of Council and we can consider both the alignment and the signing and communications as part of the comprehensive review. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you. I have a sweltering heat and we’re thinking about snow, but I appreciate that and I’m having any information before Council.

[1:02:56] Thank you. Okay, I have Councillor Raman and the deputy mayor next on the list, so I’m gonna go to Councillor Raman. Please go ahead. Thank you and through you. So first I wanna thank Councillor Perbal and also the mayor for the amendment on this item. I too have a lot of residents very interested in this topic and have been having ongoing conversations with staff about this. One of the conversations I had been having is around the lower driveway boulevard parking. So in some municipalities including St. Thomas, they’ve rolled out a pilot program where during the winter months you can actually park on your lower driveway boulevard when a winter parking restriction is in place.

[1:03:37] I’m wondering if we maybe, I don’t know if it’s could be part of this amendment or if it could be something that staff could bring back some information on. St. Thomas is in a two year pilot. One of the reasons for the rationale for this as well is with multi-generational homes, smaller housing units and parking densities removed that this is an opportunity for people to be able to resolve some of the parking challenges not face tickets during the winter months when there are restrictions. They’ve put in place a pretty good easy to template pilot in their city around how to do this.

[1:04:14] I think from the perspective of a winter parking prohibition when you have the prohibition and you have to find somewhere to put your car for people in my ward, especially in newer subdivisions where you have the ability to park it in the lower apron without it impeding sidewalks and being out of the way of the movement of the snowplows. I think that it could be an option but I’m just wondering if the staff may be able to come back to us with that in the same timeline. Thank you, Councillor. Just go ahead and look into staff. Do you see the original motion has a municipal scan here for parking bands?

[1:04:48] Would you be able to incorporate the Councillor’s comments with the motion as it is or do we need to make a slight memo? Through the chair. So if I could suggest that we would include in the report and very much aligns with looking at the jurisdictional scan and like a review of the pilot project being suggested by St. Thomas and we can provide some details on if there’s any differences or implications and we can make that part of this report coming forward. Thank you.

[1:05:19] I will go to Councillor Raman and just to keep it within the amendment as much as possible. Thank you, that’s all I had. Okay, thank you. Deputy Mayor Lewis is next. Please go ahead, you have five minutes. Thank you, Chair and through you. I want to say first of all, thanks to Councillor Pribble for bringing this forward. I did indeed work on this quite extensively in the last term of council. I was happy to see it reduced from September 1st to Victoria Day down to November 1st to April 30th.

[1:06:00] I will say even then that was a bit of a compromise for me. I thought that we could easily go December 1st to March 31st, but that did not carry the day. However, we continue to hear about these parking challenges that residents are facing. On-street parking is something that is already existing. It requires no new construction work. Doesn’t require driveway, widings, those sorts of things. We know that it does act as a bit of passive traffic calming in some instances. And while I recognize the importance of snow clearing, I think the Mayor’s amendment is a really good idea in terms of maintain a registration system because we still need evenings where we are going to have to say to people you cannot park on the road.

[1:06:47] We are not issuing permits. Ms. Share’s army of snowplows will be clearing our roads. However, there are many times during the winter when that is not the case and residents would not be impeding anyone by being parked on the road. I would really like to see us pursue this. I also think Council Ron and suggestion around the driveway apron parking is very much worth a look. It’s something I’d like to explore doing a pilot on as well. I know right now we’re asking for staff to report back. But again, and for all the reasons that Councilor Raman mentioned, the multi-generational families, the encouragement to develop ARUs.

[1:07:29] Well, renters need places to park too. And while we are at Pack at least somewhere on the deferred matters list, looking at what we allow for driveway widths and widening driveways, that’s going to be a while. And that’s a policy change that will happen or not when the time comes. But we have this system in place. And to simply remove the 15 pass limit should be a fairly straightforward software change. Should be something that we can implement very easily and would allow families a little bit more convenience.

[1:08:10] While I appreciate the families can rotate cars and register different license plates, people work shift work. People come and leave at different times of the day. It’s not always the most convenient for them to have to rotate cars around because somebody has hit their 15 pass limit. And I know that by and large, most Londoners do not use their full 15 days. But it is something where some folks do hit it. And I suspect it’s becoming an increasingly common feature as we see these multi-generational families, young adults staying at home longer, renters moving into basement units, those kind of things.

[1:08:50] And both of these are excellent suggestions, fully support them. With that, I hope that we will still be considering perhaps a shorter time period around the parking van itself, perhaps a November 15th to March 31st, something like that. I know that I have stood in snow in Remembrance Days, but often it has not been an accumulation that’s required snow clearing. It’s been a couple centimeters. So I do think there’s an outstanding problem in the city. I think this is the way to do it. I think we have to look at this from a common sense approach from a residence perspective.

[1:09:26] And I think this would do that. So very supportive of both of these options. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I’ll take those comments as the motion, as amended comments. Looking for the amendment, any other comments on the amendment? Okay, oh, Councilor Palosa, sorry. I will go back to you. You have three minutes and 22 seconds on the amendment, please. Sorry, I’ll be as concise as possible. Just more comments through you to staff, following up on Councilor Raman’s comments about the driveway skirt parking. I know this came up last term at Council too. When that aspect of the report comes back, looking to make sure that staff encapsulate in consideration, giving to boulevard damage.

[1:10:05] Lord knows I’ve seen people try and park on the driveway skirt and they hit a tree and then they back it up and hit the neighbor’s tree on the boulevard and then tear up their grass to try and speed away ‘cause they’re terrible drivers. Waste pickup considerations as people park on their driveway skirt, but it’s winter where they put their waste receptacles ‘cause they’ll put them on the road, they’ll put them on the snowbanks where our staff is not safe to climb the snowbank to retrieve it and then concerns about people having a lack of awareness of the size of their vehicle and blocking the sidewalks and snow clearing vehicles, potentially hitting it, having more of a risk management aspect and potential implication.

[1:10:41] And I’m not sure how adequate our after hours bylaw staff is that when people do decide to park on the skirt at night, when they do impede part of the sidewalk or the roadway, that we actually have staff on call to go and address it versus someone just getting around to it the next day when they come in and of course the person has moved and it’s just an ongoing issue. Thank you. Thank you. Also, Trussell, go ahead. All in the amendment, please. You wanna go for as amended? Okay. Last call.

[1:11:12] Oh yeah, so I just wanna… But just a second, Councilor, you wanna speak to the motion as amended or the amendment? I wanna speak to the whole thing. Okay, let’s call the question for the amendment and then I’ll go right to you for the motion as amended. I’ll go to you first. Any other comments, questions? Last call, okay, let’s call the question for the amendment. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, Councilor Trussell, please go ahead, you got five minutes. Thank you, thank you very much through the chair.

[1:11:48] Just sitting here listening to this discussion, I’m wondering how is this going to work on streets that are neighborhood connector streets that become the subject of a pretty significant densification going from one unit to four units? Is this, how is this idea of allowing people to these permits, much less park, park in the boulevard? How’s that gonna work if it’s four units? Thank you, Councilor.

[1:12:21] So to staff the question for a neighborhood connector streets or I guess just between the different types of streets that will have this, I’ll go to Mr. Mathers. Those are very good questions. So we’re gonna want to look to see how St. Thomas has addressed that as far as their overnight parking and their deposit project that they have, but those are all things we need to be able to look at as part of bringing forth that report. Thank you, Councilor. Is that something through the chair that would be looked at through the jurisdiction of this committee with respect to this matter?

[1:12:54] Or is this something that the planning committee really should look at with respect to the change of definition that’s coming up with respect to us deck downhouses? Thank you, Councilor. I will vote to staff on that one. Does this overlap with any other committees, planning environment specifically? So we’ll work closely with the clerk just to make sure that whatever we bring back is appropriate for this committee. If we have to break office action to go to directly to PAC, then we can do that as well. But we’ll work with the clerk to ensure we’re coming to the correct committee. Thank you, Councilor, okay.

[1:13:30] Looking for members of committee, visiting members online. Okay, I’m just gonna make some remarks fully in support of this motion. I appreciate the Council bringing this forward. I’m really interested to see what comes next. So thank you. Okay, let’s call the question. Bozing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. We have our next item on the items for direction.

[1:14:10] That’s 4.3 also brought by Councilor Fribble. That’s in with respect to the business licensing by-law as it relates to short-term rental accommodations. I do have a delegation request. I’m looking for a D-Lentine, I apologize if I botched this. (speaking in foreign language) Okay, thank you. Please come up to the microphone. I’m gonna ask committee for a motion to allow the delegate to speak for five minutes. Moved by Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Trussell, let’s call the question. Just a second, we need to vote on that and then I’ll let you know.

[1:14:55] Mayor Morgan, marking the mayor absent, posing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Okay, please state your name for the record and then I’ll tell you when you have five minutes, I’ll just put my hand up and you can go. I’m Denise Lantine-Minio. Sorry, could you not hear?

[1:15:26] Okay, I’m Denise Lantine-Minio. Thank you, you have five minutes. So I live next door to a home that is unlicensed, short-term accommodation. My family has lived here for 27 years. First 24 were wonderful, great neighbors, lots of really good people in the neighborhood. For the past three years, it is and continues to be absolutely horrendous and this summer has been the worst so far. I’m speaking for virtually all of the neighbors that I know personally within a two-block radius, the owner freely continues to run this property solely as a business for the past three years.

[1:16:06] It is not lived there, it is like living next to a hotel with no one at the front desk. Checkout time is 11 a.m. Cleaning Lady arrives at 11.15 a.m. The next group of guests starts checking in at 3 p.m. almost every single day. Last night was a late check-in. They didn’t get there till nine because the cars are from Wisconsin this week. We are subjected to large groups of people, often multiple families, many times in excess of 20 and 30 people who treat it purely as a party home.

[1:16:41] There have been endless parking violations, noise complaints and disruption to all of our lives. We cannot use our own backyards many days and evenings because of the noise and the chaos. There is very loud music, screaming children, endless pool parties, profanity, late night voices and endless parties. Last summer there were even strippers present at a bachelorette party during the summer. Many of our neighbors cannot sleep due to the noise and the stress. I’m a nurse, I work from home for one of my jobs.

[1:17:15] There’s many times that I’m not able to do my home job because it’s too noisy inside my own house to work the phone lines and do my job properly. We have lost our privacy because of people always looking over the fences and hovering at property lines. We’ve been subjected to smoke detectors that have gone off for hours, to a fire on the back deck with no fire extinguisher available and recently to people flying drones at 11 o’clock at night. We hear all this noise with our windows closed, our air conditioning on and inside music to drown out theirs.

[1:17:52] I work from home legitimately. I have a legitimate business. This is not what a short-term accommodation should do to other people. We at times fear for our own safety. We cannot approach or talk to the guests. We’ve been advised not to do so. They’ve laughed at neighbors who’ve asked them nicely to be quiet. All of this has been incredibly time consuming and a very exhausting process of sending emails, filing complaints, and waiting on hold for long periods of time on an almost daily basis. We have to rely on the city to help us.

[1:18:26] We follow all the protocols that we are asked to do when reporting complaints. I personally have had a great deal of empathy from staff and council. London police have been great, by-law enforcement officers have been great, Jerry Perble’s been great, anyone I’ve talked to, but everyone’s hands are tied. Enforcement can take a long time and we have to endure many hours and even days of unruly and disrespectful guests and behaviors. We do understand that there’s many competing and higher priority situations going on at any one time. We actually feel guilty when we have to call the police for these things.

[1:19:04] What we think is there needs to be something better. Finds need to be heavier. They need to be enforceable and they need to be swifter. Blue poles need to be closed up. There’s no need to have a full-time Airbnb or short-term accommodation in a single family residential neighborhood. There needs to be limits on the number of people that can actually stay at any such place, even if they are a licensed SDA. We fully support this motion by Councilor Jerry Perble to review the SDA by-law and to push for recommendations and amendments in a timely fashion.

[1:19:38] As a neighborhood, we are happy to work with you and we would like to see rules and enforcement that put the neighborhood ahead of the interests of the business owners. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, looking to Council Perble’s to move a motion and I’m looking for a seconder. Yes, I would like to move to motion at this time. Thank you. Moved by Council Perble, seconded by Councilor Cuddy. If you just update your eScribe, you will see it there.

[1:20:18] Okay, looking at questions, comments from members of committee first, Councilor Trussell. Well, through the chair, first of all, thank you so much to the delegates who have come. I mean, I read about this, I hear about it. But seeing you here in our chambers, talking to us personally, it really hits home. You should not have to live like this. And I really want to thank Councilor Perble for bringing this forward. I’ve felt from the beginning that while we have, while we have a serviceable by-law here, without stronger enforcement with teeth, it could around the edges be flouted.

[1:20:58] And we have a situation here showing how that can happen. It’s clear to me, having followed this, that the owner of this property understands that the penalties are small enough that it’s a minor cost of doing business, if that. So I think we need to redo this by-law. I’m in full support of what Councilor Perble is looking for. However, I’m still not satisfied that we’re doing everything we can to protect your interest in being able to have quiet and peaceful enjoyment of your premises.

[1:21:38] And I don’t place any blame here. I don’t blame the police. I don’t blame by-law. I certainly don’t blame Councilor Perble. You pointed out that they’ve all tried to be helpful. But there’s a structural institutional problem here that we need to address. And I guess I’d like to ask the solicitor, is there’s something that we could do in the short run to shut this down through an injunction or a declaration of a nuisance that would go beyond adding some incremental amount of damages to the property bill?

[1:22:17] Can we do something to provide some needed relief for these residents? And I would put that in the form of a question. Thank you, Councillor. I will go to the city solicitors to see any response to that question. Please go ahead. Through the chair, legal advice can be provided at Council. And I’ll prepare some advice for Council on that matter. Thank you, Ms. Speltland. Go ahead, Ms. Councillor Tressel. Yes, and that’s fine with me.

[1:22:51] I would be prepared to make that motion again at Council if that’s necessary, maybe I’m making it. Now does the solicitor want me to bring this up again at Council or would you be able to take the questions that I’m asking and come back to Council with a report? Thank you, Councillor. You can bring any question you want to Council, but I am gonna go to the solicitor to see if he would be required to ask that again or if you can get that question and that information from this question.

[1:23:25] Yes, through the chair, legal will be prepared to respond to this question at Council. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, and I really appreciate that. And if legal has any questions about the legal provisions in terms of declaring a house a nuisance that I’m referring to, I’d be happy to talk to you about that. But once again, thank you, thank you so much to my colleague for bringing this forward because we have instances, we have instances, nothing as bad as this, but we do have instances of nuisance houses in other words.

[1:24:00] So you really should be commended for coming on and talking to us. Thank you again. Thank you, Councillor. I have Councillor Pribble cutting in myself on the list. Because it is Councillor Pribble’s motion, you are next, do you want to speak next or do you want to be last? Okay, I’m gonna move you to last. You’re not, you haven’t put your hand up, Councillor Raman, I don’t believe you, oh, you did. Okay, Councillor Cudi, you’re next, go ahead. Thank you, Chair, through you. And you know, I don’t want to repeat everything that Councillor Trosso just said. It said it so well, I might add.

[1:24:34] But I do want to thank the delegation for coming, and I know exactly, because Councillor Pribble and I have talked about this before. So I know exactly what you’ve experienced and the disrespect, and that’s what it is. It’s disrespect that you’ve endured. So thank you for coming and telling us. And I want to thank, just like Councillor Trossos, I don’t want to thank Councillor Pribble for bringing this, because we have discussed this before. And it’s been an ongoing issue. And thank you for bringing this forward. And I look forward to supporting this motion. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor.

[1:25:05] Okay, I have myself next on the list. I’m not gonna hand it over, ‘cause I’m just gonna make some comments, no changes. First things first, thank you for coming to the delegate for speaking to us and putting your story out there. It really helps us understand the situation, especially case by case, and it helps us get the support that we need to move through this. I do believe we do have the support already, especially on this committee, ‘cause I’m gonna be supporting this motion in full, which I’m gonna go to Council Pribble. Thank you very much for bringing this when I saw this. I thought, yes, indeed, we definitely need to look at this. From what I heard from the delegate, how does this property seem to not be owner occupied when you said that the owner is not there?

[1:25:45] And with our licensing program, it has to be owner occupied. I know there’s some areas where the owner cannot be there for a while, but it does sound like this is really truly a secondary property, specifically for short-term rental accommodation. So speaking to the structural institutional problems that Councillor Trussell has brought up and speaking to the fees, the fines, and the loopholes that need to be closed up, I do believe we do have some loopholes that need to be closed up. I don’t know how they look. I know this is a complicated process. I know we’re dealing with platform providers that are not necessarily operating inside Canada and they have their own control and it’s hard to get, I guess, those providers to work with us on certain things, but I do appreciate you bringing this forward.

[1:26:25] I appreciate the motion, and I’m hoping that we can find a way to close these loopholes. Maybe it’s increasing the fees or the fines. Maybe it’s better engagement. Maybe it’s just a whole other licensing regime. I don’t know how it’s going to look, but I think this is a good way forward. So thank you again to Councillor Pribble. I think this is very soothing and exactly what we need to see. I know you have a lot of these issues in your ward, so I’m not surprised that you brought this, but I appreciate that. I’ll leave my comments there. I have next on the list, Deputy Mayor Lewis, then I’ll go to Councillor Pribble. And okay, Councillor Ramen will be after the deputy mayor, then I’ll go to Councillor Pribble.

[1:27:03] So go ahead, Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Chair. So I’ll be brief. This will have my support at Council too. I also appreciate the delegates coming to speak to us. It is a problem in wards across the city. We all have those problems, short-term rental units. And what’s very clear to me is that the penalties and licensing costs right now are not deterrence to bad behavior. And so we do have to, I think, very seriously look at the fines and penalties around non-compliance, what else can be done to ensure that, of course, we need to make sure that we are collecting the map as well.

[1:27:47] But I think the biggest issue here is around the enforcement piece and making sure that the, I think it was Councillor Trussall that said that we have some teeth that we can fight into these problems with. And clearly the fines right now are not sufficient to deter bad behavior. They need to be increased. And while we certainly can’t, as we were just talking about on street parking, well, we can’t prohibit anyone on street parking’s first come first serve.

[1:28:21] I do think that there are reasonable grounds to put some requirements around how these units are advertised as well. In terms of the number of parking spaces, people can expect, et cetera. So I am fully supportive of doing a review on this. And I will be fully supportive of some much more punitive fines because clearly when they can make it up in a weekend of one rental and have the rest of the year to make a profit, that’s not enough to turn. So thank you, Councillor Pribble.

[1:28:54] Thank you to our delegates. And this will have my support. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Okay, next, Councillor Almond, please go ahead. Thank you and through you. And once again, my thanks to Councillor Pribble and my thanks to the community for coming out and speaking to us today. I know that this is a significant concern and recognize that you’ve taken the time to come and speak to us about it. And I will say I did hear from my residents as well on this item and I did share with the Councillor Pribble some amended language around minimum distancing.

[1:29:29] So I just wanted to talk about that point in particular. So I wanna thank our staff who did some quick digging to look at what other jurisdictions had around minimum distancing. This would be, can you have multiple the short-term rentals in one area or how many can you have and where are there those types of restrictions? So there are some cities that have those in place already, not in Ontario as far as I understand, but elsewhere in Richmond, BC and in Montreal. And part of the concern from residents of my ward has been that there is a short-term rental on a street on a court that has very few houses and then you have the possibility of potentially more coming or the concern from residents that there could be more and what does that mean from a quality of life perspective as well as more maybe added to the street and so on and so forth.

[1:30:27] So I do think that there are some things that we need to look at. We also talked about parking a little bit and that’s also included in this motion to review how parking is impacted with having short-term rentals within the area and what kind of accommodations we need for those and right now for instance, residents are finding that there are parking issues and by the time they’re reported, those people are gone and then the next renters are there and so it’s difficult to please as well. So again, my appreciation, I think this is a really important discussion.

[1:31:03] We’re learning as we’re going on this as well like many other cities across Ontario and elsewhere. So I think best practices is really helpful for us to continue to review and dig into and of course, this will have my support at council. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. All right, while you were speaking, you kind of just refreshed my memory. I do have one question I wanna ask for staff. Is it okay if I do that before I go to you? Okay, just the one area that I just wanted to look at was the timeframe to report back, which is in Q1, 2026. Now we’re looking for a pretty substantial report from what I see here in the motion.

[1:31:40] I just wanted to just ensure that staff would be able to comfortably or be able to bring this report back during that time period. Through the chair, absolutely. Yeah, this very much aligns with a lot of what we’re seeing. This is a great opportunity to be able to review what was originally approved in 2022 and be able to see if we can make some course corrections. And one reason why we absolutely can put more resources to this, and this is just something that was announced today, if you haven’t seen this yet, is that London has received federal funding of over a million dollars to be able to support our enforcement of short-term rentals.

[1:32:21] So we’ll be applying some of those resources to be able to get this done as quickly as possible. And very much I think this compliments the work that we’re already doing. Thank you, Mr. Mathers. Okay, Councilor Preble, you have five minutes. Thank you, I’m just gonna start with the last comment, actually, the chairs, because of your question. I just would like to make this comment. Yes, I would like to do things done as soon as possible. Having said that there are certain things right now at this moment at the provincial level, both if I look at the ministry and especially Ontario Restaurant Hotel Motel Association. And I think that it would be good if it’s kind of coordinated.

[1:32:56] So even if the staff were to come back to us next month, I think that would be faster than the other two bodies. And I think it would be great. And yes, if the other bodies come up forward, and if it can be instead of the March, January 20, 26, fantastic. But at least with this deadline, we will be able to cover the summer season before next year. So I just want to make that comment. Thank you, staff. And as always, earlier, if it’s earlier, it’s great. On the other hand, it does need to make a sense in the big picture, because this we are dealing with for the kind of what I call globally and for long term.

[1:33:33] Again, thank you for coming and more. Thank you for your patience. Even though the delegate stated it, I just want to say, and I want to thank our staff as well. Our enforcement staff have been addressing this issue. They are there, they go there, and things are being addressed. This specific license, I’ll go back to the main motion, but this specific license city, we have done, we have not renewed license. There was an appeal, appeal was lost. As we know, that’s a public knowledge.

[1:34:06] It’s still ongoing. This is a perfect example why, when the schedule 21 was introduced past by the last council, it’s not a bad schedule, it is positive. The problem is that it’s not dealing, it’s dealing with the players that want to play by the rules of the game, and it doesn’t unfortunately address the ones that they don’t, the bad actors. And this is the thing, and I think that I already heard it from my colleagues, that this needs to be revisited. So we are not at the point when operators of these facilities, when they say the fines, they take it as cost of doing business.

[1:34:42] May comes through rules and regulation, they don’t obey by them. So this is a, this is, as I said, thank you very much for what I heard from my colleagues. I certainly hope this will pass at the council as well. And I would like to also thank council Trusso, because he already asked the question, which I was going to ask the legal department, because either way, even if it’s January, for very much, this comes back. We are addressing season, summer season next year, at the earliest, or we should be committing to that. Having said that, we need to address this earlier, especially the issues we have currently.

[1:35:15] So thank you, legal, for your response, and I’ll be very much looking forward to your update at the council. Thank you all, thank you, councilor. Okay, I’m just gonna do one last call for questions or comments, members, or visiting members. Online, okay, let’s call the question. Opposing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Next item we have here is communication for myself and councilor Frank.

[1:36:00] That’s item 4.4 on the protection of animals left unattended in motor vehicles. So I will, actually, I need to relieve my seat. Looking for a mover, okay, moved by councilor Cuddy. I will second that, okay. And the motion that we have, this one is the exact same, but there is a time for the report back on this motion. And the only thing that has changed, by the end of Q2, 2026, it should be up in eScribe for you to check. And before I go to members of committee, because councilor Frank is ready to speak on this, I just wanted to confer with the members, if it might okay, to just go out of order and allow a visiting member to speak first.

[1:36:41] So if anybody has any objections, raise your hand. Okay, councilor Frank, you have five minutes, go ahead. Thank you and I really appreciate the mover and the seconder for getting on the floor as I’m not a member of this committee. This issue was brought forward to me by members of word 11, residents who brought forward stories and examples of issues where they had seen pets left in parked vehicles and the distress that it caused as well as seeing other municipalities that have bylaws that address this issue. And in further discussion with staff in trying to find a path forward to try and address this meaningfully, it does appear that this is a provincial issue mostly, except that our municipality, including police and bylaw and animal control, which are municipally funded, have to respond to these calls, even though they are our best left for our provincial animal response team.

[1:37:34] I’m not really sure what their name is, but I know staff will know what their official titles are. And the issue, again, being in London, we do have examples of animals being left in these cars. So this year to date, as of mid-July, there are 60 calls to LPS to respond to animals being left in cars in last year. By the end of the year, there’s 114. And this creates an issue for us as municipal council because those are municipal resources going out to these calls, and it does have a cost for our staff team and our various departments.

[1:38:08] And I would like to be able to both address this issue more proactively, figure out whose responsibility it is to respond to these calls, and if we are sending members of LPS or the animal control folks that we are able to recoup those costs, but without some sort of bylaw, we are not able to charge a penalty to folks who have been found guilty or found leaving their pets in hot vehicles. And of course, that all being said, I would also like to see no animals being left in cars because as we know, especially with the heat wave that’s going on right now, it can quickly become a deathly situation in a matter of minutes.

[1:38:45] And I would really like to avoid having that happen as much as possible, and again, having staff bring back some information about how we can address this. So I look forward for your support. Thank you, Councillor. Okay, I am looking for members of committee who want to speak questions, remarks. Councillor, go ahead. Let me start by saying thank you very much for bringing this forward. I think we do have a hole. We do have a gaping hole in the enforcement mechanism here. And there is one thing that I do want to disagree with you one, and I’m just going to put this out there.

[1:39:22] This is squarely a municipal issue as well as a provincial issue. Because when you look at the powers of single-tier municipalities, there is a head of power that says, it doesn’t say much, it says animals. So this would be under that. So we clearly have jurisdiction to deal with this. I did want to make sure that this came back at a time certain, I think that’s happening. I can’t imagine that we’d be able to get this on the books for the rest of the heat season, but it will be in time for the next heat season.

[1:40:01] So that’s okay. What I would like to say though, in all due to respect to the Councillors who brought this forward, I think it would be useful rather than to just say, okay, staff go figure this out. I think it would be useful for the Council, and maybe we could work on tweaking the language before the Council meeting, to be a little bit more directive in terms of what it is we’re looking for. I mean, I don’t want a generic report back from staff in six months saying, we’ve looked at this and we’ve looked at this.

[1:40:43] I want a by-law, I want to amend the by-law ‘cause it’s going to increase the amount of enforcement that we can do. And I’ve spoken to people in parking lots, and some of the things I hear are like, well, I’ll only be a minute, there’s that one. Yeah, I talked to you about that at the bike lane the other day, I’ll only be a minute. And then the other one that’s very famous is my dog would rather come with me and stay in the car than have to stay at home. So people understand that it’s wrong to leave an animal in a hot car, and they do it, and they justify it, and there has to be repercussions.

[1:41:26] I think there are probably other by-laws that staff will be able to look at and incorporate without having to do too much work. And I also want to point out that it would be a good idea, I’m not going to make an amendment right now. I just want the makers of the motion to think about this. Let’s run this past, we do have an advisory committee still that has an animal working group, and I would like to run this by them. Because there’s probably some expertise on that committee, people who have looked at it. Over the years, the animal welfare advisory committee in all likelihood dealt with this issue.

[1:42:04] This is not the first time this is coming up. I want to make it as easy for staff as possible in terms of the drafting, and in terms of the environmental scan. And we probably have some other resources that we could be looking at. So let’s do that. I’m going to leave it with the makers of the motion to think about how they want to proceed prior to the council meeting. So I won’t be making any changes today, but I would like to see this be a little bit more directive and focused. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. If you’re looking to include the advisory committee for the animal welfare, you can make a motion if you want to.

[1:42:39] I would take that as a friendly amendment. It’s not animal welfare, we’re abolished. Right, right, that’s right, that’s right. And there’s no friendly amendments, okay. Well, we can speak to that offline, but I’d be okay to hear that now. Yes, I’d like this to go to the ESCAC working group that is intended to be the successor to the former committee. And members of that committee will be aware personally of some of the history of this.

[1:43:12] So I would like to, and I don’t think that has to happen and get a report back. That could happen while this is going to staff. I think that advisory committee can work together with staff. So I would make that motion. Okay, so from the conversation and this direction, would you be able to include the advisory committee? Through the chair, I think it would be a very important part of this of even developing the report and going back to that advisory committee to be able to get some feedback as highlighted.

[1:43:47] It’s likely this isn’t the first time that folks have looked at this. So there might be, I’m foreseeing a lot of benefit of bringing this back to that advisory committee to be able to get some feedback. So that would be part of us crafting this report and bringing it back to council. Okay, and just to confirm, sorry. In fact, one last to staff, you don’t need that in the language for this motion. I’ll take the, I think that’s something you do anyways. So no, I wouldn’t require that to be able to do that work. Okay, thank you. And I’m getting thumbs up from Council Treso. Okay, I have the deputy mayor online.

[1:44:21] So before I go to the deputy mayor, just last call from members of committee. Deputy Mayor Lewis, please go ahead. You have five minutes. I’m not going to use five minutes. I’m just going to say I support the intent of the mover and seconder and Councillor Frank’s letter on this. I agree with council trust out in terms of people rationalize why, even though they know they shouldn’t do it. So if there’s something that we can do to allow MLEOs to issue fines or something along that line, I’m certainly open to supporting that.

[1:44:57] We’ll see what staff comes back with. I would say recommendations may include a draft bylaw. It may just be something around educational awareness campaigns. I noted that the Humane Society referenced the Ontario SPCA campaign, so I don’t want to buy law for the sake of bylawing, but I’m not opposed to a bylaw either. I think that there’s lots of discussion to be had around this, but I think the intent is good.

[1:45:30] And I’ll just leave it at that for now. Thank you. And the motion for everybody who’s commented, ‘cause I did hear a new by municipal bylaw be included and not precluding anything else from the last comments, but the motion does read, including but not limited to amendments or a new municipal bylaw. Okay, so I’m going to make one last call for anybody. Okay, I’ll say I obviously support this motion. Thank you.

[1:46:01] And let’s call the question. Supposing the motion carries four to zero. Okay, the next item we have is 4.5, a motion from myself and Councillor Frank as well. This one’s on the enhancement to dog licensing and control, the control bylaw. And this is a focus on public safety, risk, dogs. So just looking at committee for a mover, moved by Councillor Cudi, I will second that.

[1:46:40] Let’s put that on the floor. And looking at committee again, if I can look to Councillor Frank to read this one in. So anybody who opposes the visiting member to be able to speak first, please raise your hand. Okay, Councillor Frank, you have five minutes. Thank you. And I just want to confirm that the one on the floor is the updated one with the deadline for Q3 of 2026. That’s correct. This one has an updated deadline as well. I don’t have it in front of me. Yes, this one is by the end of Q3 2026.

[1:47:16] Okay, go ahead. Thank you, much appreciated. And again, so this has been brought forward by a variety of residents, there’s a petition circulated as well as residents forwarding it to my email and having conversations with me about this issue. As many residents in Ward 11, I’m sure across the city love walking their dogs and bringing them to off leash dog parks. And this is in regards to trying to address dangerous or potentially dangerous behavior dogs. Again, not being breed specific as there’s demonstration that doesn’t necessarily work. And it’s a little bit showing a bias when you’re trying to do breed specific laws.

[1:47:52] This is looking at behavior specific issues and having staff bring back a report about what kind of controls and education and enhancement and enforcement measures we have to try and address this behavior. I’ve heard many stories from residents and as well as if you were able to see the petition where unfortunately dogs have been injured or killed by other dogs and not a whole lot happens afterwards. So this would demonstrate what London is able to do within our licensing control by law as well as what resource implications I would have. So this is just trying to get more information to make better informed decisions about dangerous dogs.

[1:48:29] Thank you. Okay. Looking at the members of committee council, go ahead. I would simply make the same comment about the working group of the advisory committee on this. Like I presume the answer would be the same, but I’ll just leave it at that if you’re shaking your head. Okay, and for the record, I’m gonna say, I’m gonna go to Mr. May this. Through the chair, yes, that would be our same background that we’d wanna do before we bring for something forward to committee. Thank you, Councillor. Okay, any other comments, questions?

[1:49:06] Okay, I’ll make one. I appreciate this work, obviously. Working with Councillor Frank on this is something that I wanted to bring myself. I did have members of my community reach out. And they did tell me about specific cases about how they lost their dog against another dog, a aggressive dog that had a past. So I do believe that this is something that is very well suited for what we need to do. In the end, there are no bad dogs and there are no bad owners, but this is on us is on the ownership of a dog.

[1:49:41] We need to ensure that people know and people see that there could be consequences for having a dangerous dog out in the open. I believe that $150 fine and a muzzle order for a dog that has previously killed another dog is just not sufficient. And it’s not one that will protect other dogs and other dog owners’ family. I myself have a dog and I could not imagine if we lost our little Hampton. So I’m very appreciative of this. I’m gonna fully support this. I like how we have the time on that as well. I see the deputy mayor’s hand is up.

[1:50:14] So I’m gonna go to him next and then I’ll go to Councilor Raman after that. So go ahead, deputy mayor. Thank you, Chair. And again, just like I said on the last one, I appreciate the good intent here. I will caveat that or put an asterisk on it and I’ve expressed before the value I placed on change.org petitions, which is not very high, even though some of the signatories may have good intentions. Others are just signing them as keyboard activism and sometimes not even from within our jurisdiction.

[1:50:51] So while I don’t place a lot of weight on a petition piece, I do place some weight on the intent and the information shared by the Councilors in their communication on the agenda. I appreciate the input from the Humane Society as well. And I think that there has been mistakes made or assumptions made in the past around breed bands where other than around dog behaviors.

[1:51:25] And I’m a firm believer that there’s no such thing as really a bad dog. It’s about owners who aren’t training their dogs properly and not following the proper measures for the breed that they happen to be the human parent of. So I do appreciate the intent. I’m supportive of getting some more information. I will add that, of course, for me, there will be considerations around practicalities and impacts.

[1:51:58] I’ve had one person say, oh, you should do what Toronto does and do a heat map. I’ll be honest, I’m not interested in doing a heat map. People move information changes. It’s staff resource complicated. I’m not interested in doing that, but I do think and I agree with what you said, Chair, $150 fine in a muzzle order. Absolutely not sufficient. There does have to be higher consequences than that. And I think that this opens the door to us imposing some of those higher consequences. So I am happy to get more information and see what comes back as options for us.

[1:52:34] Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Okay, Councillor Ramen, you’re next, you have five minutes. Thank you and through you and first to yourself and the mover, Councillor Frank, for this piece of communication. I really appreciate it. I think that, again, it’s great for us to have the discussion here at committee on these matters. And I do know that there’s a lot of public interest on this as well. One of the concerns I have though is jurisdiction and specifically around how the province has oversight over this matter and how our municipal by-law is right now very complimentary to that.

[1:53:15] I think I would love to see an amendment to this to read something like the mayor write a letter to the solicitor general asking for updated language around dangerous dogs and potentially dangerous dogs to be defined in the act as well as a lot of what my understanding is around some of the issues that residents face is that when something does happen in order for a peace officer to take action, there’s a lot of back and forth and time concerns.

[1:53:55] So it may take a year for something to be enacted so that a dangerous animal can be dealt with. So to me, again, that’s more of a provincial issue when it comes to the ability to move quickly and be responsive on issues such as this. And I know that the act gives our municipal by-law officers the jurisdiction to be able to maneuver within the act and to be able to do something. However, I do see the investigative time and the ability to move this along faster probably is more of a provincial issue than a municipal issue that we have to get some of the language in that particular act updated in order for it to have more teeth.

[1:54:46] So I’m not sure if that’s something I can do. Well, obviously as a non-member of this committee that I have to do at council, but I do think that we should try on different fronts to address this. And again, although we can do something locally, I also think it’s important to also put the onus back on the province where necessary to make sure that they’re being responsive and that they’re addressing these concerns as they can. Thank you, councillor. I did hear the councillor make some comments about an amendment.

[1:55:24] I know the mayor is not online at the moment, but I don’t know if you work with him and bring something to council or if someone is here is willing to move something for you. Okay, councillor cutting. Chair, thank you and I’ll move that amendment. Thank you. Well, I would need a seconder and you can speak to it at council trust. So let me get it, but I’m looking for a seconder on the amendment. And just if you can, the amendment, the language from what I heard was to have the mayor communicate with the province with respect to this matter.

[1:56:10] I think I have it down that the mayor read a letter to the solicitor did general to suggest we do something province-wide. Okay, we have a motion here.

[1:57:06] I’m just gonna read it out. So that the motion be amended to add a new part as follows. The mayor be requested to write a letter to the solicitor general with respect to this matter to suggest changes to provincial legislation related to dangerous dogs and public safety. Before I go to you, I do have a mover. I do not have a seconder, a seconder. Okay, I will.

[1:57:45] We can, I’m not necessarily in support. I’m gonna second it to get it on the floor. I wanna hear what has to be said. Okay, I’m gonna go to council trust. Can I speak to the motion? Yes, you can. Then I’ll go to council trust. Go ahead. I think it’s a very simple. I think councilor ramen for bringing it forward. I think it’s very simple. That’s not a huge ask. It’s just bringing an attention to a problem that we’ve all identified in this room today. Thank you. Thank you, councilor trussock, go ahead. Think that the mayor can write a letter.

[1:58:27] I would rather see the mayor’s political capital with province be more focused. And I think we need to ask the question, do we have a basis of jurisdiction in the city of London under the municipal act, such that we could proceed anyway? And the answer to that, I believe, and I’m not gonna give you legal advice. We have the solicitor here. But again, I wanna refer to the section of the municipal act that lists the heads of municipal jurisdiction, which includes animals.

[1:59:04] And by including the word animals, period, and not further limiting that, the intention of the legislature, and again, I can be told the moral, is that this should be broadly construed. Now, there’s not a conflict. The very fact that there is concurrent jurisdiction between the city and the province does not necessarily mean that there’s a conflict. ‘Cause there’s a further section that talks about conflicts. If we try to say you have to do something that the provincial law says you can’t do, or vice versa, then we would have a conflict.

[1:59:38] We don’t have a conflict here ‘cause it’s supplemental. And while, yeah, have the mayor write another letter, but I just think it’s not a good use of the mayor’s political capital, and he could do that anyway. But I’ll be voting against this portion of it, only to underline the broad authority that Ontario municipalities have over animal measures. And we talk about this in a variety of different contexts. But should I, may I ask the solicitor, what does the inclusion of the word, quote, animals, as one of those separate heads mean?

[2:00:23] Thank you, Councillor, you can. I will go to the city solicitor for that. And I would ask at this time that a motion be made to go in camera to receive legal advice. Okay, we heard the city solicitor. I will look to committee, moving camera. If there’s few issues. Okay, I need a seconder, a seconder, council approval. Just bear with us.

[2:01:29] Please refresh your e-scribes, okay? Go look in the comments, questions about moving into camera. Okay, let’s call the question. Housing the vote, the motion carries three to one.

[2:02:04] Okay, that means we’re going to go into closed sessions about us, members who are sitting in the gallery. If you can depart the gallery for just the time being, we shouldn’t be too long, I’m assuming. So you can come back after. And for staff who are not on this item to also please leave the room, we’re going to lock up the doors and we will let you. Recording in progress. Okay, we are back into the public session.

[2:03:26] I’m going to look to Councillor Perbault to report out from the in camera motion or in camera session. I’d like to report that we did receive a legal advice on the 4.5 that we went into the closed session. Thank you. Yes, the progress has been made. Thank you. Okay, where we left off, and that was section 4.5, looking to members of committee, oh, Councillor Ramen, you, okay, you have two minutes, 22, go ahead.

[2:04:00] Thank you, so on the amendment, the Dog Owner Liability Act, which is a Provincial Act, it has a definition section in the act, but does not have a definition around dangerous dogs or potentially dangerous dogs. And from my understanding of the communication of us is what is being discussed and recommended. Jurisdiction is the City of Toronto and City of Waterloo. They have went ahead and added those definitions based on those they have included some other measured signage, it includes heat maps, et cetera.

[2:04:34] What I’m saying is when we start to spin multiple jurisdictions, it says to me, and this idea of political writing a letter is part of our mechanism for a decision of council. So it’s not political capital, but us as a council exercising how to speak to government, to ask government to make a issue with us, I think make a choice to me about something. Well, if we were to make this kind of a classic, we would also manage a jurisdiction in our own boundary. So if it became something that was plea part of an act, that would mean that that would carry one jurisdiction other.

[2:05:08] Again, with people’s move with their ability to move up, that’s actually an important thing. We want to not just have application across, but my colleagues will consume the person advocacy. It is really important that municipal as well as eventual definition. Thank you, Councillor. Good chairing through you, and once again, ramen for bringing this one full-ask chair in my chair. I appreciate the political capital of campus, and you know, I might move the needle. Hi, Councillor Frank, go ahead. Thank you, and the vote of this item amendment that Council should pass or not pass. A lot of the work that I should do to the best under there. So I believe there’s one person who’s, and I’m as out of these officers, but they pretty much service all of Southwestern to go up to the Collingwood area.

[2:05:52] We have the services response of time from the province, and so, you know, we still address within our jurisdiction to give both these. This is a process for this letter to staff, and if they get the parable job in there, the terms are. And if they could explain, perhaps, the COVID-19 committee or an explanation of the kind of the provincial, know who to look, maybe it’s. Chair, to the officers that are individuals across the province, they don’t have the approval, so we just know that they are very difficult to be at people. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, yes, I love the pre-apprential, right, but it’s a very important issue, but. Councillor Trussell, you have two minutes.

[2:06:26] It may seem that I’m being picky, suggested. It’s not a big deal, might move in. And that’s why I need to raise the letter of this motion. Though the fact that we have a request to get more information that is silly with the police, that there’s a conflict, jurisdiction, to do exactly what’s, and if we are going to introduce sort of failure of the province to do everything they need to do every time, we could be adding on a lot of requests for letters. And maybe that’s a separate motion, even if I am a little worried about it, who is valid, request for the expansion of the, the, the existing municipal jurisdiction.

[2:07:11] So in this context, being tied to this motion, I can’t, I can’t support it by that. I’m not saying that the province is down here now, because it’s not your main to this motion. On lines. Okay, let’s call the question. For the amendment. Three to one. Okay, motion as amended. Got some question. Could you, could you call them separate? Motion to add a new part?

[2:07:44] Then we will. If it’s a ridge, actually the motion is not at 4.5 K. We have two more.

[2:08:32] We have an item from Councillor Cuddy and then we have the poll work seven from the consent. Look to Councillor Cuddy. Thank you. Seconder. I think I have a seconder and Councillor. Seconder. I had a call Friday night about six o’clock from around. Councillor, I think we’ve got people immediately went out and found out that the house was actually rented at two people. And we just isolated Councillor Buster’s ward or Debbie Mayor Lewis’ ward, was out from the house.

[2:09:03] So I could, in forage to ban a fighting, my good friend took me to the house who I call and they had some forward removal of infraction. Friday night, he had six of them out of the house and we have the problem and I did buy law about it. There, it’s something with myself. I was elected to do the, that’s what I was elected to go and serve us well, not by having to involve. Buy law does a great job. We’ve got Gritman glad to see here today. Chair, we all suffer from it. Your Councillor Ward six has similar problems. So, but this is an opportunity for us to move forward and it dovetails very nicely off of the short-term forward.

[2:09:39] The opportunity is forward to review our bylaws on long-term edations and improve. And so, I like supporting this. Thank you, Councillor, remember for yourself. Yeah, because I do think though when this comes back, it’s the merit on getting the report back. But, the ending is we can regulate bedrooms. Is that correct? Through the chair, partly as bylaw, you can regulate how many people can resume space.

[2:10:21] So that’s the bylaw we went when addressing the situation. Okay, I’m very much in favor of, but I think I have, there should also be on your motion. You know, or I’m great with that section. So, I’m not gonna make that amendment. You like it? Oh my God, I’m here visibly. And the attention is that this would be visible either from the street or the public could without aid or trespass. See the bylaw right now, but that’s all we heard. Chair, Chair, there must be a flight.

[2:10:59] So, I’m really happy to take his amendment and be also to you. Yes, and signage should include, and this is where, whether property in the unit with municipal, I’m looking at Mr. Mathers for help here, Mr. Jeff. To staff to help. That it would just be confirming that the licenses in good state are really beyond what we already consider as part of the license regime.

[2:11:33] Are in compliance with the licensing, whether they’re in compliance, I would just, without such time, set up a sign. Is there an administratively feasible way files? Or maybe that would be the way some way. And, you know, I’m thinking out why, ‘cause we’re a committee and another, ‘cause you’re gonna have to start printing signs, and you’re gonna don’t want to. Just for drafting something up. So, just read a new part as follows.

[2:12:23] If the administration be directed to release information about whether or not the property is for Council Raman, you’re after. So, I’m just gonna look for the mover, and then. Okay, actually, are you, you’re quite backed off with you. Okay, he said, Mr. Mather, go ahead. Are in compliance, I think that the member to Councilor said, if he introduced something like, or spent an older backup. So, how will we be able to keep up with this?

[2:12:57] Do we have the manpower to Councilor? So, he’s looking, Councilor’s looking for resources, and able to, legally speaking. So, for the first part of the resourcing, I’ll go to Mr. Mather. With the report back, we would go highlight on all the staffing. I think it might be helpful for Mr. Jeffery to do the application. And then, there is like a Emilio walk through that ends his granted. So, this could just be like providing notice provisions if it’s something that Council wants to proceed, all that current practices. Thank you, Mr. Mathers.

[2:13:30] Mr. Jeffery, please. As Mr. mentioned, part of our approach is to schedule a bunch of regulating, I legislate that we handle. So, we need to be compliant based from a team. Council, if I compare it, let’s say trans. They are usually, depending on the establishment, but let’s say, for this trans, they see it, and it’s on a continuum base. If we award this at the beginning, the life says, you’re dying compliance, but this could be one to be detecting, the house owner, the clients, but people will say, oh, they got a certificate.

[2:14:06] Because this is an inspection. Thank you. That looking type of requirements during renewal of the license, I’ll basically be able to use them within the current by-law, but if it’s something. Thank you, Councillor. Prison, that’s what I’m just gonna hold. Thank you to Councillor Prokie, address some of the questions I had, and two grams of higher level of certain signage, their license, or they’re in a rental. I hear the concerns. The one concern I would have, though, is to put in place to then, impact what, or someone’s reason for licensing.

[2:14:38] So we know that there are a fair amount of people that do, of which then, want to actually get a residential license, if they’re licensed now, to Brampton, for instance, they’re undergoing a pilot project to actually better, and I agree with the Councillor, Councillor Kennedy’s original motion on who is actually renting out all of the case, doing ourselves a disservice, because, inance, we are in something teary, which we have that license with our fire safety requirements, so we bring off a lot of jurisdiction.

[2:15:14] One thing I will bring into the discussion, though, is some sort of, and we have it within our search and see which ones are in compliance right now, our rentals, renting other municipalities, or looking to be able to do that. I think something electronic is probably easier for us, voting, et cetera, I think that’s putting more onus to this. Councillor Ramana, that’s interesting, and I’ll take an consideration. We may be stretched too far at ease, and of by-law, and in and ourselves, that’s not, maybe by-law, where we, I do it now, and I probably shouldn’t.

[2:15:47] I know I’m pushing the limits, but what I do is spend and do for day. So, we need to take this on and do some of the heavy lifting. Councillor Pribble, next, I do want to put some remarks. I’m going to say I’m from the chair. I’m at the parties of 300 people, and plus myself, doing exactly what you’re doing. I’m going to privacy. I don’t know a move in the motion. I changed, I do want to see enforcement be good in a way that I’m a motion motion, because we’re on the amendment, but I will bring it back forward, but I can’t support, amendment I can support.

[2:16:24] So, I guess I’ll keep some of the potential in this, and I’ll go to staff and see if that is the correct interpretation. The previous discussions with Councillor Kadi, it will be important to put on a secondary motion when we get to the main one. It’s with the same intent, it solves the ability to move within and not get held up with some areas that I see might be in. Next, I have Councillor Pribble. So, please go ahead and confirm. In compliance, as I said, it will put this in the month, weeks, whatever it is, time for this person to decide their how to support the, she’s the main power, ‘cause let’s say for restaurants, supporting it, I’m very much in support of the order.

[2:17:03] Thank you. I have Councillor. I just want to clarify, given some of the comments from my staff, and incidents of party, or too many units, I want to get that on the record, that the provincial MOU regulate staff, get a bit of clarification. Concerns and issues. We’re here to be able to provide that by-law. Mad enforcement, of course, doesn’t limit people having conversations, but we are happy to be there and someone want people to be safe as possible when you’re out. Thank you, I believe that was the staff when I told them about the last one. I understand that I appreciate my completely support.

[2:17:37] I just want to note that that is ability and to have, so that I’m planning to hire more MLEOs and not attending, just want to appreciate the one forward, just like that. Okay, I have for this amendment. I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to, but I did pass this by. Not only did I miss pass through legal, and let it go. Any additional questions? We’re not enacting what we’re laying out, what’s going to have to report that comes back to us. So if you find anything that’s not, you’ll be able to do this, this reason or that reason.

[2:18:11] So I think a lot of the concerns that I’ve been, will take care of themselves when we get you. Okay, I think questions, for the amendment. The amendment carries. All right, so this is the motion as amended. Last call, okay. I’m gonna hand over the chair to council privilege of this with the motion. And the main one would be to display the name and contact number offered across so similar to, that confined within, select few numbers of, of, of these.

[2:18:46] The majority of the properties that I have in my ward, do have issue recruiters, especially with student rentals, and new students come to their issues ‘cause they don’t know what’s going on here. They leave issues coming from the same property. So that leads me to believe that it’s not, it is the, you know, that is that properties, well, negative of properties that don’t necessarily have these London large. It’s every single rental to license, to be in requirement of getting a staff report, but it’s able to legal already. But I didn’t get a chance to do that.

[2:19:18] So I assume the recommendation for action on, if we can’t do that, would we need, sorry, it’s through to, through to council. The intent is that that would be addressed in the report back. That’s been a legal advice on the prides would be addressed. Presiding officer, okay. So if we were to bring this through, it would be that would you be able to hear the recommendations to this motion for a consideration that would improve the availability of key that language or is this language enough or anything that’s going to be able to provide more transparency, more information to the public.

[2:20:01] This was, you’d be looking at like a one-field would be appropriate to show to provide the public. Councillor. Thank you, Presiding Officer. And my last question would be with respect to issue property standard, PNC, would this report be able to capture anything there, do language for that? ‘Cause I really think that those are very similar and I’m just sure that if my issues that I have in my nampus name, do’s with the cycles of studies coming through. Staff, us being able to look at those matters, that is definitely something that we incorporate it into this language.

[2:20:34] It’s more about that traditional piece of work that you, and to provide special, to provide to the mover. I would like to make an amendment to add that piece in. From what I get from, they would still be able to areas that are related here since back. So I’m okay with aspect, but I do want to know if we’re recurring properties. If we have identified a property that has similar issues, recur, year over year, if we can, some respect has been having a shortage of issues with the neighborhood, and they happen again and again. They’re frequent, not just one-offs. I’m asking for the seconder, so.

[2:21:12] I’m a little confused, actually, what is asking, because when we get to staff, there’s not something. And keep in mind, there is going to be, I own, I own. In many can send us back a report, something that’s violating. And most certainly, if they think too over, we’re going to suggest, I think motion, and I don’t think there’s anything that is. And in terms of whether there are recurring violations, that, you know, that staff would have to look at. But the point, I think we’ve given staff enough indication of the port that we’d like to get back and make a decision.

[2:21:47] So I’m prepared to just support the moment to send us back to something that’s well thought out and thought for. Thank you for your kind own feedback. I would like to go back to Council of Clarify. I’ll just answer both separately. I did have, I don’t display the name counter, I think, just Berency or Tinsurance staff. They’re bringing us forward. That’s why I’ll be supporting this now. Now, if I get a recommendation, the second one was the recurring issues. It was issues because the people who are telling the issues, so that’s why I thought the recurring issues should be incorporated into this.

[2:22:20] My question was to staff, if you don’t need this language, then I’d be happy to not put the language into an agreement slightly, I guess, there. I just, my question really is, do I just do the language? And if not, then I’m happy to keep it the way it is. Standards and occupancy issues come up if you have identified properties. And I will say, if I say everything said and definitely, just must I leave it right there? Do you need the language in the motion? So people that have recreation share differently about that property or people that have come up with a mechanisms to be able to do for people different to our site than that, I’d think that needs a new time issue, then we can make sure that we’ve been suggested.

[2:22:57] Councillor? Thank you. I guess I’m more of in a discovery mode. It’s not necessary, but I do know that you have, believe that you’ve identified, a progressive enforcement or ideas that you might want to include on that. But if we’re within like a more discovery phase of report, wanna see a priority on these recurring issues happening at this time. It means as is, we are going to move to the main motion. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:23:28] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for joining us today. Our item 2.7, the Thames Pool Update. Okay. So that’s the last one. Looking to announce this. We do have, I can have it added. So for anything.

[2:24:01] I mean, if you want to put a motion on the floor, let me know. Okay, looking, cutting, just an inclusion of the staff, the Chancellor Frank. Let’s do update your e-scrope. I’m gonna counsel her, please. Thank you. And I wanna thank staff for bringing forward this report. I think that many people are not surprised that there is not an immediately perfect location, a motion to seek direction from committee and from council on a report location facility.

[2:24:44] As you can see in the Northwest require multi-use facilities in indoor, that Bazel Grove large enough. Your locations, the other five parks are an outdoor pool, but given we are not currently a process of building outdoor pools, Bazel Grove Park kind of became the only option that is a city owned asset based on other fees. So hoping to see a highlight that that one would at least, you can see on page five that that kind of didn’t are absolutely, and the right process would be each then any of those identified projects could eventually go into the future facility. So just hoping for your support to look at that looking in a separate future report, what we’ll have at the Thames Park, that’s a separate process and have been working with you, address the pool.

[2:25:26] So thank you, Mark. Also, you have five minutes. This is just a brief report out there. Under 2.3 feasibility of pool located in the staff report, ID number one, Bazel Grove Park unclear about the main proponent and class. Council for that one. I may turn up questions that eventually have a pool in the future, leading a fit, a multi-use facility, which actually requires a meeting that emanates the other five options, and therefore, I’m just asking Bazel Grove. But perhaps through the chair, we could go to staff to provide any clarification.

[2:26:01] Thank you, and through the chair. So when we initially looked at that, and we looked at, we were directed to look at the fees indoor pool only. So in conversation with this, and I built this build East Lions community, particularly to facility, indoor pool to it. I don’t want to pool. So you have, and look required and required that really identified, Bazel Grove Park was the only one that would have sufficient potential use facility, including an indoor points line. Councilor, what Councilor Frank going to eliminate the other ones. And I’m on a stand from the Councilor and/or staff is, what’s and what the Councilor is suggesting?

[2:26:37] To Ms. Smith. Sorry, and thank you through the chair. Our report provided you with some information and to say, at the time we are in the midst of doing our five year updates, population, our demographics, and we will come with great. Let’s do that. We know the city that we’re going to need, and I’ll speak to you. And now we have potentially identified as another multi-unit. We have some capital to support those. And now she’s saying, when we can Q1, 20 demographics, we will look like to Kendall Grove Park for that. Thank you, Councilor.

[2:27:11] Go ahead, Ms. Smith. Instead, so we will look at one, me doing. So the next location for the Grove Park. I have some questions. Okay, go ahead, Councilor. To be clear, the main reason for my motion is just because the other parks are to have a multi-use facility. And that, so I’m just trying the point and see it on the page five. I forget to play it, please look at base location, but they’re tall. So I just want to clarity on that. Okay, as a grover, I’d like to have a moment.

[2:27:45] Thank you, Councilor. I have a question. (mumbles) Thank you, the chair, I don’t have any amendments. So I guess the first one included. I just wanted to go to staff and we don’t build only, we don’t build outdoor pools. I did not suggest or recommend that we build outdoors, nor do we build out any more. The efficiency, the cost effectiveness of building a pool for eight weeks is just not something that is recommended. Would be the reason we would show you with just a pool, indoor.

[2:28:21] Thank you, and through the chair, multi’s general and multi-use generally would include gymnasiums and multi-purpose activities. I would assume that a multi-use build an indoor facility like a community center, then to 65,000. So on average, up to 65,000 activities. And while maybe some are watching swim lessons, there’s other opportunity or family men. So when you look at that ratio for an indoor facility, in effect more impact and outcomes to the community and the neighborhood, when you think of one to assess this facility.

[2:28:58] Areas in my ward that I would love to facility, which is a better use of our funds to be efficient, needs a minimum of all of mine out. So because of that, I’m going to support that motion as able to get your facility. Ask something to crystal ball it. I know this is a lot harder. How much do you think it would cost? The North’s potentially our seventh indoor pool. Then we have to say for each about $40,000, $40,000 projects. Kind of similar at about two projects that we’re looking at. And then to add this though, where we’re going.

[2:29:31] In January, we’ll come back with our updated democrat. That time we land where we’re looking for wear pools. We should build our new facilities. What are they located probably through budget? Dental needs through that. And in addition to the works of Rec Master Plan update, the 2026 DC battery, which will help for these projects. Those are my questions. And it’s a good use of the tax payer funds or it’s appreciated, you put it on it. Councillor Frank, online. Councillor Trussell, go ahead.

[2:30:05] Okay. I don’t want to be facility pool or report comes back to us. Which is why I’m, I’ve been convinced why I should support this motion. It’s clean motion today. Still be saying no. And we are not making a decision. However, I do see that we’re looking for. Thank you and through the chair. That’s correct. We’re waiting for the master plans. When those geographic area in line with these sections, Hazel Grover would be somewhere that we would— So just so I’m clear, by voting no candidate.

[2:30:48] Okay, thank you very much. Call get the received report or call the— Based on what I heard, I would be voting no on the motion. And we have a receipt of the report. Would you like to explain? Parks and Recreation by Councillor Israel. So I really don’t think why should we extend it to the, because it was very clear. Once we have our vision, our strategic plan. So I will be supporting Councillor Frank’s motion. Thank you. I think part of it is, the motion was just not in your head, but Pribble was speaking.

[2:31:25] Was that because you agreed? Thank you, Councillor. I will go to staff for that one. Thank you and Jamie has up it. So if we come back with the information, it may allow a little more into this potential site for future multiple information. And it may allow us to go to the next step. But this is a district park. We wanna look at what are the other amenities there. We may be if this is where we walk, being when we consider that there’s something there that precludes it and deeper dive into this area. So we just look at it deeper into this specific park.

[2:32:00] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay, but I wanna…