September 8, 2025, at 1:00 PM
Present:
D. Ferreira, H. McAlister, P. Cuddy, J. Pribil, S. Trosow
Also Present:
Deputy S. Lewis, S. Stevenson, C. Rahman, S. Datars Bere, Y. Asare-Bediako, R. Danter, A. Denomme, K. Dickins, D. Escobar, M. Feldberg, S. Govindaraj, D. MacRae, L. Marshall, S. Mathers, A. Pfeffer, A. Rammeloo, E. Skalski, C. Smith, V. Tao, J. Bunn
Remote Attendance:
A.L. Barbon, E. Bennett, C. Cooper, A. Small, R. Wilcox
The meeting was called to order at 1:01 PM.
1. Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest
That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.
2. Consent
Moved by P. Cuddy
Seconded by H. McAlister
That Items 2.1, 2.2, 2.5 and 2.6 BE APPROVED.
Vote:
Yeas: H. McAlister P. Cuddy J. Pribil S. Trosow D. Ferreira
Motion Passed (5 to 0)
2.1 2026 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List - Call for Nominations
2025-08-13 - Mayors New Years Memo to Committees for 2026 Nominations (Full)
Moved by P. Cuddy
Seconded by H. McAlister
That the Memo, dated August 13, 2025, from the City Clerk, with respect to the 2026 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List Call for Nominations, BE RECEIVED.
Motion Passed
2.2 London’s Newcomer Strategy: Choose London – Innovative, Vibrant and Global (2024-2028) and London Newcomer Survey by London & Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership
Moved by P. Cuddy
Seconded by H. McAlister
That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the staff report dated September 8, 2025, with respect to the London’s Newcomer Strategy: Choose London – Innovative, Vibrant and Global (2024-28), and London Newcomer Survey by London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership, BE RECEIVED.
Motion Passed
2.5 Project and Funding Agreement for Construction or Renovation for Licensed Child Care and Early Years Programs
Moved by P. Cuddy
Seconded by H. McAlister
That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the proposed by-law (“Appendix A”), as appended to the staff report dated September 8, 2025, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 23, 2025, to:
a) authorize and approve the standard form Project and Funding Agreement for Construction or Renovation for Licensed Child Care and Early Years Programs, attached as “Schedule 1” to the by-law (“Agreement”); and,
b) delegate authority severally to the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, and their written designate, the power to insert relevant information into the Agreement and to approve and execute Agreements which employ this form, subject to the provisions in the by-law.
Motion Passed
2.6 Interim Housing Assistance Program (IHAP) Agreement 2025-2027
2025-09-08 SR Interim Housing Assistance Program Agmt 2025-2027 - Part 1
2025-09-08 SR Interim Housing Assistance Program Agmt 2025-2027 - Part 2
2025-09-08 SR Interim Housing Assistance Program Agmt 2025-2027 - Part 3
2025-09-08 SR Interim Housing Assistance Program Agmt 2025-2027 - Part 4
Moved by P. Cuddy
Seconded by H. McAlister
That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the proposed by-law (“Appendix C”), as appended to the staff report dated September 8, 2025, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 23, 2025 to:
a) ratify the agreement between The Government of Canada as represented by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the City of London relating to Canada’s Grant under the Interim Housing Assistance Program (IHAP) to the City of London in the amount of $7,345,000 for eligible activities incurred between January 1, 2025 and March 31, 2027, and;
b) delegate authority severally to the City Manager and Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, to approve and execute amending agreements with The Government of Canada as represented by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the City of London agreement relating to Canada’s Grant under the Interim Housing Assistance Program (IHAP) to the City of London for costs incurred to provide interim Housing to Refugee Protection Claimants (Agreement), as appended to the above-noted by-law.
Motion Passed
2.3 Western Road and Sarnia Road/Philip Aziz Avenue Corridor and Intersection Improvements Project Update
2025-09-08 SR Western Road and Sarnia Road Philip Aziz Ave Corridor Improvements
That the staff report, dated September 8, 2025, with respect to the Western Road and Sarnia Road/Philip Aziz Avenue Corridor and Intersection Improvements Project Update, BE RECEIVED;
it being noted that a verbal delegation from S. Titiziani, University Students’ Council, with respect to this matter, was received.
Additional Votes:
Moved by S. Trosow
Seconded by H. McAlister
That the delegation request from S. Titiziani, University Students’ Council BE APPROVED.
Vote:
Yeas: H. McAlister P. Cuddy J. Pribil S. Trosow D. Ferreira
Motion Passed (5 to 0)
Moved by S. Trosow
Seconded by D. Ferreira
That, the following actions be taken with respect to the Western Road and Sarnia Road/ Philip Aziz Avenue Corridor and Intersection:
a) the report dated September 8, 2025 with respect to the Western Road and Sarnia Road/Philip Aziz Avenue Corridor and Intersection Improvements Project Update, BE RECEIVED;
b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take such steps as necessary to implement the recommendations contained in the report including: the leading pedestrian intervals with lagging left-turn phases, no turns on red, new dedicated in-boulevard cycling infrastructure on Sarnia Road (from Sleightolme Ave to Western Rd) and Western Rd (Platt’s Lane to Burnlea Walk), new roadway cross-section with in-boulevard cycle lanes on Philip Aziz Ave (Western Rd to Thames River), relocated entrance to 150 Philip Aziz Ave, new storm sewers on Philip Aziz Ave, installation of Western University sanitary forcemain, and the watermain replacement on Western Rd (Platt’s Lane to Sarnia Rd); and
c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with respect to other improvements at the Western Rd, Sarnia Ave / Phillip Aziz Ave intersection including more detailed information about the feasibility of a pedestrian scramble;
it being noted that the Committee received a delegation from S. Titiziani, University Students’ Council.
Moved by S. Trosow
Seconded by D. Ferreira
a) the report dated September 8, 2025 with respect to the Western Road and Sarnia Road/Philip Aziz Avenue Corridor and Intersection Improvements Project Update, BE RECEIVED;
it being noted that the Committee received a delegation from S. Titiziani, University Students’ Council
Vote:
Yeas: H. McAlister P. Cuddy J. Pribil S. Trosow D. Ferreira
Motion Passed (5 to 0)
Moved by S. Trosow
Seconded by D. Ferreira
b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take such steps as necessary to implement the recommendations contained in the report including: the leading pedestrian intervals with lagging left-turn phases, no turns on red, new dedicated in-boulevard cycling infrastructure on Sarnia Road (from Sleightolme Ave to Western Rd) and Western Rd (Platt’s Lane to Burnlea Walk), new roadway cross-section with in-boulevard cycle lanes on Philip Aziz Ave (Western Rd to Thames River), relocated entrance to 150 Philip Aziz Ave, new storm sewers on Philip Aziz Ave, installation of Western University sanitary forcemain, and the watermain replacement on Western Rd (Platt’s Lane to Sarnia Rd);
Vote:
Yeas: Nays: S. Trosow H. McAlister P. Cuddy J. Pribil D. Ferreira
Motion Failed (1 to 4)
Moved by S. Trosow
Seconded by D. Ferreira
c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with respect to other improvements at the Western Rd, Sarnia Ave / Phillip Aziz Ave intersection including more detailed information about the feasibility of a pedestrian scramble;
Vote:
Yeas: Nays: S. Trosow H. McAlister P. Cuddy J. Pribil D. Ferreira
Motion Failed (1 to 4)
2.4 (ADDED) WITHDRAWN - Public Nuisance (PH-18) By-law and Administrative Monetary Penalty System (AMPs) By-law Amendments
2025-09-08 SR Public Nuisance By-law and AMP System By-law Amendments
That it BE NOTED that item 2.4, entitled Public Nuisance (PH-18) By-law and Administrative Monetary Penalty Systems (AMPs) By-law Amendments, was withdrawn from the agenda at the direction of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth.
3. Scheduled Items
3.1 5th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee
2025-08-28 ESACAC Report - FULL
Moved by S. Trosow
Seconded by J. Pribil
That the following actions be taken with respect to the 5th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on August 28, 2025:
a) the following actions be taken with respect to the Parvovirus outbreak in London:
i) the communication, appended to the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee, from the Progressive Animal Welfare Services (PAWS) relating to an outbreak infecting canines on Wharncliffe Road North BE REFERRED to the Animal Welfare Working Group to review and provide recommendations at a future meeting; and,
ii) it BE NOTED that the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee heard a verbal presentation from E. Birkner, Initiatives Manager, PAWS and a communication dated August 15, 2025 from PAWS relating to protecting pets and public health in London, was received;
b) the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee Chair BE REQUESTED to contact Committee Members to schedule an informal get-together in September 2025 to provide an opportunity to enhance relationships and comfortability in a more relaxed environment to help to encourage open communication;
c) the communication, dated June 27, 2024, from the City Clerk and Deputy City Clerks, with respect to the 2026 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List Call for Nominations BE REFERRED to the next Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee meeting; it being noted that Committee Members were requested to provide Nominations to the next meeting;
d) a Working Group BE ESTABLISHED consisting of M.A. Hodge and B. Samuels to further discuss with the Civic Administration the possibility of establishing a national urban park in London; it being noted that the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee heard verbal delegations from J. Dann, Acting Director, Parks and Forestry and S. Page, Manager, Parks Long Range Planning and Design and received a communication with respect to this matter;
e) M.A. Hodge and B. Samuels BE TASKED to review the City of London Salt Management Plan; it being noted that the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee heard a verbal delegation by D. MacRae, Director, Transportation and Mobility and received a communication, appended to the Environmental Stewardship Community Advisory Committee Agenda, with respect to this matter;
f) the following actions be taken with respect to the Official Plan Review of The London Plan and Urban Growth Boundary Review:
i) the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to undertake a study to identify the costs of infrastructure for mitigating wildlife-vehicle collisions (e.g., wildlife crossings such as underpasses and exclusionary fencing) to be incorporated in future transportation planning projects to service ecologically sensitive lands being moved inside the Urban Growth Boundary prior to the 2028 Development Charges Study;
ii) the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to develop a broader natural heritage connectivity plan for lands in the west end to be moved inside the Urban Growth Boundary, to be protected under The London Plan environmental policies; it being noted that to achieve this connectivity, it is recommended to review the highlighted sections of the annotated map, appended to the Urban Growth Boundary Working Group report as Appendix A, flagging potential areas of concern for natural heritage planning; it being further noted that these areas were identified for their potential to mitigate fragmentation and preserve structural and functional connectivity of natural heritage systems by creating permeability for wildlife movement through the transportation network and future development, and naturalizing/restoring habitats where feasible;
iii) the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to provide an updated map and summary information showing how much agricultural land it currently owns inside and outside the new Urban Growth Boundary, including the class of agricultural lands, current uses, and changes in ownership over the past 25 years; and,
iv) the attached Urban Growth Boundary Working Group report BE RECEIVED; and,
g) clauses 1.1, 1.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 5.2 and 5.5 BE RECEIVED.
Vote:
Yeas: H. McAlister P. Cuddy J. Pribil S. Trosow D. Ferreira
Motion Passed (5 to 0)
Additional Votes:
Moved by P. Cuddy
Seconded by S. Trosow
That the delegation request from B. Samuels BE APPROVED.
Vote:
Yeas: H. McAlister P. Cuddy J. Pribil S. Trosow D. Ferreira
Motion Passed (5 to 0)
4. Items for Direction
None.
5. Deferred Matters/Additional Business
5.1 (ADDED) Councillor S. Stevenson - Urgent Situation Within London’s Housing Stability Program
2025-09-08 Sub. Housing Stability Program - S. Stevenson
That it BE NOTED that a communication, dated September 3, 2025, from Councillor S. Stevenson, with respect to an Urgent Situation Within London’s Housing Stability Program, was submitted to the Community and Protective Services Committee Agenda.
6. Adjournment
Moved by H. McAlister
Seconded by J. Pribil
That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.
Motion Passed
The meeting adjourned at 2:37 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 (1 hour, 56 minutes)
[20:59] Okay, I’ll be calling the third meeting of the Community Protective Services Committee. I’d like to welcome everybody in chambers, staff, members, visiting members, and online, members, people in the gallery. And I’ll read the opening statements here. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishnabek, Haudenosaunee, Lina Peiwak, and Adawandaran.
[21:31] We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. 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 to provide alternate formats of communication and supports for meetings upon request. To make a specific request to this meeting, please contact CPSC@London.ca or dial 519-661-2489 extension-2425. I just want to recognize members of the committee that we have in chambers today.
[22:16] I have Councillor Hadley McAllister to my right here, Vice Chair. Councillor Sam Truso, Councillor Jerry Perbal, and Councillor Peter Cuddy. I also have visiting members, Councillor Susan Stevenson, and Councillor Corinne Robin. Anybody? First, I’ll start with any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, so we’ll move on to concerns. We do have a delegation for 2.3, so that will be pulled and I’m looking for a motion to move sections 2.1 to 2.2, 2.5, and 2.6.
[23:01] Moved by Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor McAllister. Okay, so we have 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, and 2.6, so I’ll look for any speaking notes or any comments or questions that members of the committee first would like to make and then I’ll go to visiting Councillors. Councillor Truso. Yes, I just wanted to thank the staff for the newcomer strategy paper.
[23:37] The photo is very effective. You’ve really done some very, very detailed and careful and thoughtful research and I think you’re serving the constituents of this group very well. Listening to some of the media coverage of this, I was a little concerned that maybe there’s more. We could be doing, I know you don’t have a delegation request here and this is an information report, but I would be either at this meeting or at some point in the future very interested in hearing more detail about your work in this area and I’m wondering if they could be treated as staff if they want to say a few words or are they not considered staff?
[24:33] I think they’re staff, so could I ask the staff just to have any additional comments? Just a second, Councillor, let me just confer with the clerks on that. Direct this one to the city manager. Thank you, Councillor.
[25:21] Please go ahead. Thank you, Councillor. I understand this is an important priority for Council and we have been doing some extensive work with the community on this. Vincent’s been the lead coordinator on this project and he can add a few words. There’s been some excellent research, there’s excellent engagement with the community, but I would like Vincent to add a few words. Thank you, Councillors, Councillors, the chair. So the newcomer’s strategy advisor body will take this report back to the upcoming meetings to make informed decision and evidence-based initiatives in order to guide us into areas that can make the most impact with our existing resources.
[26:02] Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, thank you very much. I will follow up with your office personally to just try to figure out some more about what to do, what to do next. And I also really appreciate the, the media did some very good work on it. I’m happy to get this report and I don’t have anything else to say.
[26:40] Okay, Councillor, other members of Councilor, or members of committee, sorry. Councillor Prepper, go ahead. Thank you, thank you as well for this report. There are three parts that kind of, when I was reading, especially the surveys that kind of came to my mind or I kind of stopped on and I was hoping not to get additional information now, but for us to really think about. And the first two was permanent residents in the city of London seem to struggle more in some ways than those who live in Middlesex County. That’s one point.
[27:12] The second one, whereas those living in the city were more likely to experience confusion about who to get to help from, to get to help. So I think these are the two points that, I don’t know if the people that conducted this research, or they have additional information, by a person who would like to know what’s behind it. What’s behind it? Is it something, again, the channels, the informational channels that we use, the marketing strategies, potentially not as effective as we would be hoping for.
[27:44] I know if you can comment on these two, and then the last one is, it’s at low level of education and less time spent in Canada. Those with secondary school or lower educational qualifications were less likely than those with the higher level of education to achieve. And I think that there is one thing that maybe it was done, but when we talk about where the opportunities are, there is one part that’s missing, and that’s the trades. And if I look at this, it’s not really covered in this area. And I think that there would be great again, if it wasn’t just covered, okay, but if it was not covered, and if it didn’t come up with any of these newcomers, I think these are the gates that we should be opening up to them and showing the opportunities that London and Canada has to offer.
[28:31] So I know if there is anything you would like to comment, but these three points were the ones that jumped out at me. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor. I can direct that to staff. Through Chair, thank you for the question, Councillor Prego. I know there are a couple of questions, and I can answer them like one by one. So according to those executive summaries provided by the writers of the report, there’s no clear direction to the causality of those issues that permanent residents faced in the City of London.
[29:04] But we’ll continue to have ongoing conversation with them to find out more. And regarding some other questions, such as access to information, this is what we will continue to improve and enhance with our existing community partners. And the City of London is going to host the committee as well, with representatives from the trade to directly engage with newcomers in order to attract them to enter into that profession. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Okay, thank you. No more questions, that is done. No comments. Thank you, Councillor.
[29:36] Just recognizing that Deputy Mayor Lewis has joined us in chambers. Councillor Prego, you have another question? I do have for 2.6. So I don’t know if we are going one by one, or if we are doing altogether. Altogether. Altogether. Okay. I do have a question, and it’s actually has to do. I keep saying 2.6, it’s actually 2.5. The childcare agreement, and in this agreement, I really like the risks and mitigation. I think that really makes sense. And I really, I think that we are protecting ourselves as much as we can.
[30:10] But my question is, we have the agreement that we have certain schedules. And when I look at this, for example, the incomplete or delayed projects. Projects may not be completed on time or on budget. Mitigation agreements will include milestone reporting, funding type, project completion, and verification. When I go to the agreement, yes, it’s blanked the date for when the project should be completed. When I go to the schedules, that one gives more detail in terms of kind of the biannual reporting, et cetera. And I just want to make sure, when these schedules are completed and signed, is it at the same time as the agreement, or is it later, how is the process in this perspective, if someone can answer that for me, please?
[30:59] Thank you, Councillor. I will go to Mr. Dickens for that. Thank you, Chair, and through you, yes, they sign the schedule at the same time. The schedules make up the agreement. So when the agreement is signed, the organizations are agreeing to the schedules as well at the same time. Thank you, Councillor. Okay, glad to hear that. And I have no more questions. And again, I think the risks and mitigations are make sense, thank you. Thank you. Okay, I do have requests for comments from a visiting member, but I just want to go to the members of the committee first.
[31:32] So if there’s any comments or questions from any members of committee, no, okay. I will go to Councillor Ramen, please go ahead. Thank you, and through you. So I have some general comments about a few items that are in front of us. The first on the London’s newcomer strategy, again, I really appreciate what’s in front of us today. I like that our strategy has been consistent when it comes to our newcomer strategy. But I also would like to get a sense of what other communities are doing as well.
[32:06] Because I think, although we’ve had a lot of consistency in our approach, we see and I’ve attended newcomer day, as well as the number of our other engagements in the community. I’m just wondering where are we seeing innovation in this space? And one of the things I really liked reading the report was the entrepreneur angle that we’re taking. And I think that there’s some strength there. I see alignment with the small business center as well and some of the work that they’re doing.
[32:38] So really appreciate more of that, the synergies that we can build across groups. So that’s just a comment when it comes to that partnership and that work that’s being done. But I do wanna ask or just make a comment about 2.5 as well. I will say that addressing our childcare needs in our community, I know is top of mind for a lot of us, commitment we have in our strategic plan as well. But there are many constraints within the call agreement that I would say limit how much we can do as a city.
[33:17] I’d like that this is an opportunity to expand existing childcare spaces in existing licensed facilities. I’m just wondering how we can support newer entities that are looking to come into the community when they can’t be part of the licensing system because of this or not, sorry, not the licensing system. They can’t be part of the quelks system because of the fact that we are not allowed to add new registrants from the for profit market.
[33:53] Thank you, counselor, Mr. Dickens. Thank you, chair and through you. As service manager, we are required to follow the auspice ratios that are set by the province for quelks. But to expand on that a little bit further and give you more details on joined online by one of our childcare and early years managers, Adrian Small, and I’ll pass it over to Ms. Small. Ms. Small, please go ahead. Thank you very much through the chair. The city of London is working to support non-enrolled quelks providers.
[34:28] We’ve developed a policy to continue to support those providers with professional learning opportunities that are provided through the city of London with the support of Strive, providing professional learning. We also have continued to support indirectly, according to the province, we’re able to do that. Special needs resourcing for some of those programs where there may be children at the program that may need additional resources to support their inclusion as well. We are looking at how we can include them in any professional learning that’s available sort of system-wide to be able to support their progress.
[35:11] We also include them in communication that we share with the entire childcare system. So we do have contacts with them and we’ll be supporting them ongoing as part of our system of childcare and early learning. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you. Just my final comment on that part of this report in particular, I would definitely say there’s more that we can do on the advocacy side when it comes to the quelk agreement in general. The fact that there is the limitations that we have within the agreement that constrain our ability to get new spaces into our community, I’ve met with providers that are looking to get into the city and provide childcare.
[35:58] But now because they’re not eligible for quelk, they’re going to compete at a higher cost for their services. So we all have a shared responsibility when it comes to childcare. And I think finding these the way forward with the federal and provincial government must be part of our consideration as we move forward. But I do like how we’re looking for opportunities through this construction and renovation agreement. I do have a comment on 2.6, if that’s okay, if I may. Thank you. So, I struggled when I was reading this one. I first, I think it’s great that we were able to secure an opportunity to receive funding.
[36:38] $7.3 million can go a long way in our community to help those that are living unhoused and those that are occupying shelter spaces. However, I know with our long wait lists for affordable housing and our continued need to support those that are living unhoused in our community. I’m struggling to understand how this program, in some way, puts certain groups of people coming into the city ahead of the line.
[37:12] And I’m trying to wrap my head around that. There are people that have been long time struggling in our community, trying to get housing. And these new units that are being created would be life changing for them as well. And so, that’s, I’m just sharing how I feel about what’s in front of us today. And I know there are different pots of money that the federal government comes to the table with and I understand that.
[37:47] And our job is to apply for opportunities that will benefit our community when we can. But I wanna know whether or not, I guess my question will be for maybe our MPPs, MPs, sorry to a later date, is whether or not there’s flexibility on who gets these opportunities and these spaces because project itself is, we need to support. And this funding will help to do that by creating or covering the cost of 11 units.
[38:25] But again, I’m not sure how we put people that have been on a wait list for years ahead, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you, I share Councillor Ramen’s concerns there when we are advantaging some, a particular portion of our population over others. It gets to be a difficult conversation. According to this report, if I read it correctly, 10% of our shelter spaces have been allocated for asylum claimants and now here we’re looking at, presumably all of those would get one of these units because we’ve got 30 some odd units there.
[39:13] The other thing is when we get this opportunity to access federal funding, it comes with a requirement that we use some of our own funding. So yes, we’re getting 7 million, but we’re also committing to using 3.3 million of our own money at a time when we’ve had difficulty the last two years finding enough money for indoor shelter for people during the winter. So, and last year when we did, or two years ago, when we did the stability of the shelter system, we were $4 million short at that time with the hopes that we wouldn’t be needing all of those shelter spaces with our hubs and highly supportive housing going up.
[39:58] That doesn’t appear to be the case. Those contracts are coming forward again in February of 2026. And so I have trouble when these come forward one at a time when we don’t have a big picture understanding of do we have enough funding to meet the current needs? Like this is great, but do we have 3 million that we’re allocate, that we can allocate to this and at what price? Are we going to receive an ask for more municipal money, money from a reserve fund, or are we going to be told that we don’t have the money that we need to provide indoor shelter this winter?
[40:36] So I guess my questions through you to staff are, oh, that’s the right way to word the question. I’m concerned about the 3 million. I don’t know how much of it is municipal property tax dollars because the bulk of it, the 2.2 million, says a provincial and municipal. And I’m also wondering when we’re going to see sort of a bigger picture of between now and next year, here’s how much money we have.
[41:08] Here’s what it covers so we can assure people that we have enough to meet the demand without coming back to a municipal property tax dollar ask. Thank you, Councillor. I believe the question is, is what’s, if there is a breakdown between municipal funding and other levels of government funding and projections of what funding may be spent? Can you clarify the last point? So yeah, there’s the 2.2 million. I’m wondering what percentage of that even just roughly is municipal.
[41:43] And do we have the 3 million? What is the opportunity cost here? When we say yes to the 7 million and we’re committing 3 million of our provincial municipal funds, what is, what are we going to not be doing with that 3 million dollars that we would have done prior to this? Thank you. I will go to Mr. Dickens. Thank you and through you, Chair. I am joined by Mr. Cooper online. He’s going to provide some details on this question. And as noted, this is a federal program targeting a specific population.
[42:21] We saw this as a way to leverage previous council decisions around supporting the cross-cultural learning center housing project and that the capital contribution would be one time in nature and alleviate some of the risk of the ongoing support. And this is a population that is a priority population for the federal government and the call came out to municipalities. So this will create an opportunity for where some individuals and families that are asylum claimants that are currently staying in family shelters or currently staying in a hotel space or using our shelter system could be transitioned out of those beds, out of those spaces and into the housing opportunity which would free up space in those systems for folks who are experiencing unsheltered homelessness or are waiting to get into shelter now.
[43:15] But with that and for the questions at hand, I’ll pass it over to Mr. Cooper for the financial piece. Thank you, Mr. Dickens. Go ahead, Mr. Cooper. Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair, the application was on premise on leveraging a number of existing programs and dollars that we are already spending. As Mr. Dickens mentioned, we are providing services to asylum claimants in shelter as well as hotels and we are working to continue doing that as the demand requires. Part of the other pieces around case management, when we talk about system navigation, translation, many of those services are provided to our life stabilization team.
[44:00] And so this enhancement is to assist the community to work with our life stabilization team in an ongoing manner that will support asylum claimants. So we do see a number of asylum claimants applying for social assistance and we are supporting them through a case management lens. This is as folks kind of come into our community and their first contact are these agencies is to help those organizations initially to meet the demand. But then as time moves out and this program shifts, it will be supported by our life stabilization caseworkers for the needs for case management system navigation and there’s any requirements for translation.
[44:44] Thank you, Mr. Cooper. Sorry, I believe as Mr. Dickens mentioned that the capital piece is that one time aspect as well and it is to leverage some existing investments from the city as well as I believe the province on that development. Thank you. Mr. Cooper, sorry for interrupting you there, Council. Thank you for that. But I do, as I said, we’ve had a shortage in our budget. That’s what we’ve been receiving in the last few years. We haven’t had enough money to meet the need and now we’re taking three million from our municipal property tax dollars.
[45:23] Is there any concern about where that money was previously allocated and now that it’s going here, what isn’t going to be funded? Thank you, Councilor. So the question is any concern of where the money’s being previously allocated and I can hand that over to staff if they can comment but I would also go to committee to see if there’s any comments there. Well, I do believe I have a question.
[45:58] Hold on, Councilor. Great, do I not still have? Yep, you do. Go ahead. Well, that was my question for staff. Where’s the $3 million coming from? What are we not funding that we were previously going to do? Okay, that’s a question I can give to staff. Go ahead, Mr. Dickens. Or Mr. Cooper. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m actually going to take this question again. So there is no property tax implication for additional dollars. We’re leveraging existing programs that are already funded through either HPP or homeless prevention program or reaching home.
[46:38] So shelters, some of our hoteling programs, those are programs that we do fund already and have contracts with organizations as noted until late 2026 or mid 2026. So those early 2026 or a fiscal calendar year. So those programs are anticipated to continue on. So those dollars that are aligned and your marks for those programs are part of that leveraging for this program. Now, we talk about the other pieces around the case management, around the translation, those case system navigation pieces.
[47:18] Those are, again, responsibilities down the road that our life stabilization team will be absorbing and be able to support individuals who apply for social assistance. So there isn’t an intended or expected reallocation of funding or loss or input of municipal funding. It is really trying to leverage the existing programs that we have committed funding for in order to be able to utilize and access this funding. Thank you. Go ahead, Councilor. Thank you.
[47:50] I’m not going to belabor it here. I’ll take it offline, but the shelter agreements, the operating basic shelters, we were $4 million short the last time it was brought to us. And so we’re finding this $2 million from somewhere. So I do have some more questions about that. I’ll ask it after. I also wanted to ask like it, we had the cross cultural learner center. There was an application for funding. We did that. Then there was money that was freed up from another project that canceled and we gave them the money for that.
[48:23] Now this is more money. My understanding is this is the same building, those same units. We’re not getting more housing in our city for this, right? We’re not adding any units. I’ll give that to staff, Mr. Cooper. Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair. So the development is we would have to be accessing the units and the development. So we’re assisting the CCLC in this case who are developing that large building in supporting their operating performance.
[48:59] So when we were looking at making this application, we did connect in with our federal partners to ensure that the commitments that were made by council, the IHAP dollars could also be applied to this development. And given that CCLC was going to be taking on a mortgage, this will help with their producer operating performance mortgage costs and so on, while allowing us as the city and service manager to provide access to 11 of those units. So I don’t know if Mr. Felberg’s in the room there to speak more to the specifics around the agreement with CCLC, but that’s how we were again, we’re leveraging existing funding in order to assist the affordability of this program and this development.
[49:46] Thank you, Mr. Cooper. I’m gonna go to Mr. Felberg. Thank you, through you, Mr. Chair. So the contribution agreement and the funding that we put towards the cross cultural learnings and center project was all capital funds to support the development. My understanding from this program is this is more operational support the tenants as they move into the building in order to support them in over the long term. Thank you, Councillor. Yes, thank you. And so is this, these 11 units, is that over and above the 25 or 30 that we had for our wait list?
[50:23] Thank you. I will go to Mr. Cooper, I believe, might be able to answer that. Yes, thank you, and that is the intention is it would be above and beyond the existing commitment that it was made for other funding. Thank you, go ahead, Councillor. Thank you. So in terms of the emergency, there’s a lot in here. There’s also four full-time staff, a case management worker, housing stability worker, support services navigator and a welcome center intake support worker.
[51:02] So it’s about close to a half a million dollars in four full-time staff people, but we’re estimating 30 asylum seekers. So it just seems high in terms of staffing. Can you share anything about it? Is there an expected increase in it anticipated? Are we expecting more asylum seekers? Or is this four full-time staff for the projected 30 people? Thank you, Councillor. I will go to Mr. Cooper. Thank you, and through you, Mr. Chair. The services are with the organizations that were part of the Asylum Claimants Working Group network, so that we’re meeting regularly to talk about services and needs in community for asylum claimants.
[51:47] And so those services will be more broadly for all asylum claimants in our community. We have been seeing a fairly steady number of asylum claimants over the last couple of years. Just around a thousand total in our community based on our social assistance numbers. Obviously, some of those folks don’t ever touch our system, don’t touch the homelessness system, they’re not staying in shelter, they’re able to get their social assistance and move forward. But many of them do come into contact with these programs, CCLC, some of our neighborhood resource centers and others, then they do need those case management and supports.
[52:26] And so, again, this is to help leverage our existing investment within our life stabilization team initially to support that increase in or that. What we see is that demand in order to help support more asylum seekers than our team. Thank you, Mr. Cooper. I’ll go back to Councilor Stevenson. Just note, you got about seven seconds left. I did see Councilor Trussell’s hand up, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Cooper answered my questions, thank you. Thank you, okay.
[53:00] Any questions, comments for anybody who has time remaining or hasn’t spoke for anything on the consent that we have before us? Okay, I see none, I’m just gonna make some comments just from the chair position here. I do agree with Councilor, Councilor Robbins, comments on the funding agreement for the licensed childcare in early years program. I do know that we have a big need and I believe that this is, and I have experienced myself, this is a real intersection between affordability, to be able to even to enjoy one’s life and being able to raise your kids and having the time to create income while you do that as well.
[53:44] It’s a very important step that we’re taking. I do appreciate bringing this forward, but I also want to ensure that we capture providers who are just really, I guess, caught up in the financial viability concerns that we’re speaking about in this report. And I do wanna make a note for the Mayor’s New Year’s Honorsless Call, and that’s just a call for nominations, is gonna be ending on September 22nd. And I’m just putting that call out that if anybody has any significant listeners who’ve made some real contributions to the city, to please put those names forward.
[54:23] So other than that, that would be everything for my speakers list for this, so I’m gonna call the question for items 2.1 to 2.3, and sorry, 2.1 to 2.2 and 2.5 to 2.6, so we’re gonna call the question now. Posing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, that moves us on to scheduled items.
[54:58] We have one, that’s an item from the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee. We have a delegation request, so I am looking for committee to move a motion for the delegation of Mr. Samuels. Moved by Councillor Cudi, seconded by Councillor Trussell. So let’s call the question. Posing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.
[55:42] Okay, thank you, committee. Okay, Mr. Samuels, it looks like you’re ready to go, so I will start your five minutes now. Please go ahead. Excellent, just wanna check, can you guys hear me online? Can you give me a thumbs up? Amazing, all right, thanks for accommodating me online. Normally I try and attend these things in person, but it was unavailable today. I don’t think I’ll leave my full five minutes, I just wanted to touch on a few highlights from the advisory committee’s report, and there’s a couple of questions with that. First, I just wanted to note, we have finally selected a new vice chair, and I’m really pleased that this is actually the first ever youth appointment to our advisory committee.
[56:19] I think they’re gonna make an excellent vice chair, and I’m hoping one of these days you’ll get to hear from them directly at standing committee. Won’t need to go over everything from our committee’s report, but there were a couple of items for follow up. One is regarding salt management. At the infrastructure and corporate services committee meeting, I believe in August, there was a discussion about the Winter Maintenance Review. Our committee took an interest in this, and followed up with some questions about the salt management approach. The city has a salt management plan that was adopted in 2016. We were unable to track down on that plan, and are wondering if it might be possible to have the staff share it with us so that we can take a look.
[57:00] Noting that it’s almost a decade old, we’re also wondering if there might be a window coming up where that plan is scheduled for review. Would appreciate any clarity about that. Our interest in this was stemming from some advocacy that came out of a few other Ontario municipalities and conservation authorities in alignment with research coming out of the University of Waterloo that is looking at barriers to reducing applications of salt and questions around liability frameworks for salt management. This is not something we’re taking action on right away.
[57:34] We’re just seeking further information. Second item from our committee’s report, I wanted to just speak to you briefly, is regarding the urban growth boundary. We are taking a look at the lands in the West area of the city that are being proposed for addition to the urban growth boundary. That particular area was flagged by folks in the community who we consulted, such as ecologists and planners, people engaging in environmental monitoring for concerns around natural heritage impacts. What we are wondering about is the next steps we should anticipate for natural heritage planning in that area, recognizing the conversation around the urban growth boundary is still ongoing.
[58:16] In particular, we’re looking at the need for infrastructure, especially to mitigate collisions between vehicles and wildlife, which are significant safety concern if you have roads passing through natural areas. This is something that we are recommending the city might want to take a look at ahead of the next development charge study because that is perhaps the right window to be thinking about the cost of that infrastructure needed for safety. As these roads are being expanded to accommodate growth into the future, had a brief chance to chat about this with the mayor a couple of weeks ago.
[58:53] And he seemed like he was receptive to the idea. So we are simply providing a report with some recommendations perhaps to be referred to staff undertaking that background study for the next DC study. And finally, we’ve heard a lot of interest from the community about agricultural land impacts with the urban growth boundary decision. We were hoping to have access to current information about how much land the city, agricultural land the city of London currently owns and the uses of that land.
[59:26] So you’ll see in our report a request to have that information shared with our committee as it is available. And happy to take any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Samuels. Okay, I will. Okay, so we do have the motion from recommendations from the report. So I would need a mover for that before we can have a discussion or comments moved by Councilor Trussell. Looking for a seconder, Councilor Perble seconds. Okay, thank you.
[59:59] All right, looking for a speakers list, questions or comments? Okay, I’ll have some questions, I guess. And just from the chair. So with respect to the salt management plan for the environmental stewardship and action community advisory committee, the chair did make or mention, and I did see in the report that the last one was from 2016. So I wanted to know if we are expecting that to come up for review anytime soon and what the timeline would be, Mr. McRae.
[1:00:40] Yeah, thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. Yes, the current one is 2016. We had a good discussion with the committee about our salt management plan and how we judiciously, it’s really scrutinized, the application of salt recognizing its benefits for rural safety, but also its impact on the natural environment. And as technology continues to improve application rates, GPS technology, all sorts of aspects, new products to de-ice and anti-ice. We’re staying current and it is approaching time for an update and our current thinking around when that is best timed is after the next update to the minimum maintenance standards under the municipal act that apply to road operations.
[1:01:32] When the next five-year update is released, that’s anticipated in the near term. And we’d like to see that and then see if that has any influence and we’d update our salt management plan at that time. Okay, thank you for that. And you would be able to share, I guess, the 2016 salt management plan as it is with the advisory committee. Yes, yes, happy to do that. Thank you. I guess I do have some more questions I see committee doesn’t, so I’m gonna hand over the chair to do this right with my vice chair, Councillor McAllister.
[1:02:06] I have just used 33 seconds. Okay, I recognize you have the chair and you wanna continue with your questions, go ahead. Thank you, presiding officer, just two more questions. For the urban growth boundary request that I saw in that report. So I do see the same concerns with our natural heritage planning and just natural heritage corridors just to make sure that we have connectivity between different sites. And as we bring that into the urban growth boundary, what comes first?
[1:02:39] Do we look at connecting those areas? Or do we look at, I guess, planning on the urban growth boundary site and connecting it after? So I just wanted to know what the process is for that. Good stuff. Through the chair, so just an overall update on where we are in the process is that we’re out for community information and consultation at this point. So very much had no decisions have been made on the urban growth boundary, just we’re currently out. So all of these comments are really great comments to be able to put into that process and to be able to figure out those next steps.
[1:03:15] In general, when we talk specifically about once a decision is made, after that, the planning overall planning process takes over. What we’d be looking at for any large substantial new areas is undertaking neighborhood plans and that would have a very detailed look at the natural heritage aspects and to try to ensure that we have these connections moving forward. Similar to like we have it within the existing city and some of our previous corridor plans. Go ahead, Councillor.
[1:03:46] Thank you for that. And I guess the last one that was brought up for the information about the city owned agricultural lands, just kind of, if you can give me some feedback on that. How much work would it take to pull this information out and provide it to the advisory committee if they requested that? Go ahead, Steph. Through the chair, I have just blazed with our Realty Group just to understand some of the magnitude.
[1:04:19] So there’s a substantial amount of work if you want to have it at a parcel by parcel basis, which I think is what’s being asked here. ‘Cause of course, like any of our industrial lands and any other other purchases in the last 25 years, we’d have to be able to go through and bring that forward. So I can’t speak directly for their group, but it is a significant matter. All right, thank you. That’s all my questions for now. Okay, I’m not seeing any other hand, so I will return to the chair to you. Go ahead. Thank you for presiding officer. I’m just gonna make one last call. Members of committee, visiting members, comments, questions.
[1:04:52] Okay, let’s call the vote. Using the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you. Okay, so we have an item that was pulled that was item 2.3 with a delegation request. So I’m just gonna confirm that we have our delegates in chambers.
[1:05:25] Okay, and just to confirm, if there are two delegates speaking on behalf of the student union, just one. Okay, so it’s five minutes total. So I’m just gonna ask committee for a motion and then just get ready at that mic right there. Okay, I’m looking to committee for a motion, moved by Councilor Trosso, seconded by Councilor McAllister. Let’s call the question. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.
[1:06:03] Okay, state your name, where you’re from, and then you can go ahead, you’ve got five minutes. Once you get to 30 seconds, I’m gonna put my hand up. Go ahead. Good afternoon, my name is Stefan Tatizian. I’m from London, Ontario, and I’m serving as the Associate Vice President of External Affairs for the University Students’ Council. At Western University, we represent over 36,000 undergraduate students. So we’re very excited that you guys had us today here. I wanna thank you for the opportunity to speak today alongside USC President Catalina, and for the city’s ongoing work to make our community safer and more accessible.
[1:06:37] The Western Road and Sarnia Road, Felipezis Avenue, corridor is one of the biggest gateways in our city. Every day, it carries thousands of vehicles, cyclists, translate users, and pedestrians at the main intersection. The planned upgrades, including separated bike lanes, transit bays, and wider sidewalks, to protected intersection design, and improved drainage, our critical investments, and behalf of all students at Western, I want to express our appreciation for making this a priority. At the same time, I would also like to raise one concern that we do have.
[1:07:13] Construction is scheduled to begin in 2026, but under the city’s mobility master plan, Western Road is designated as a future rapid transit corridor, with bus rapid transit implementation expected in the near term. That means within the next decade, this same stretch of road can be reconstructed twice. Once for current corridor upgrades, and then again for the BRT. For students, staff, and community members, we rely on this route every single day. That level of repeated disruption would have significant impact on safety, accessibility, and quality life for our students.
[1:07:49] Students in particular feel these disruptions acutely. At a higher proportion than many other London residents, the students rely on public transits, walking or cycling to get to campus. Logger communities, detours, and accessibility barriers make it harder to get the class to work, or for example, to university hospital placements for students. It also heightens safety concerns, especially during P times, when thousands of students and staff are moving through this intersection. Our recommendation is that as you move forward, please explore ways to accelerate or coordinate the BRT construction with the current corridor implementation improvements.
[1:08:30] Even if the acceleration isn’t fully possible, better alignment would reduce duplication, save costs, and most importantly, minimize disruption for Londoners who depend on this corridor daily. Our hope is that this city takes the opportunity to connect with Western University to its BRT network as soon as possible, while ensuring that the safety of the intersection is improved without further delay. Once again, thank you very much for the city’s leadership on this project, and for the opportunity to bring forward this student perspective.
[1:09:03] We’re eager to collaborate with council, city staff, and Western administration to ensure infrastructure in this area is developed with the student voice in mind, ensuring it is safe, efficient, and future ready for decades to come. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. All right. I am under the impression that there is a motion or alternate motion from the recommendation. So if that is the case, I’m looking for a mover. Councilor, go ahead.
[1:09:37] Thank you very much. I’ve prepared an alternative motion because I think that the recommendation in the staff report, which is correct and which I support, is to receive the report. And I think it would be useful for the record and to let the public know what we’re doing to say a little bit more than just we’re receiving the report. So what I’ve tried to do is say that we want to direct civic administration to take the steps necessary to implement the recommendations.
[1:10:14] And in part one, I’ve tried to faithfully and correctly reiterate what the gist of those recommendations are. I don’t think I’ve missed any, but I did say including in case I missed one. I also want to take this time to say many of these recommendations I think are very badly needed and we should be implementing as soon as possible. Perhaps the most dangerous part of this— Councilor. I just need you to read the motion before we debate the merits of the motion.
[1:10:50] If you can just read it and then I’ll go back to you. Thank you, my five minutes would be up before I read the motion at the rate I was going. So thank you, thank you very much. Do you want me to read the whole thing? Okay, so basically I reiterate the current recommendations as they’re stated and I state and further that civic administration be directed to take such steps as necessary to implement the recommendations contained in the report including the leading pedestrian intervals with lagging left turn phases, no turns on red, new dedicated in boulevard cycling infrastructure on the Starnier Road from Slate Home to Western Road and Western Road from Plattslane to Burnleya Walk.
[1:11:33] Comma new roadway cross section within boulevard cycling lanes on Phillip Aziz from Western Road to Thames River, relocated entrance to 150 Phillip Aziz Avenue, new storm surge on Phillip Aziz Avenue, installation of Western sanitary force main and water main replacement on Western Road too. Civic administration be further directed to report back to CPSC with respect to other improvements at the Western Road, Sarnia Avenue Phillip Aziz intersection including more detailed information about the feasibility of a pedestrian scramble.
[1:12:13] It being noted that the committee received the delegation from Omar Said, vice president, external affairs, university students council and we can substitute the correct name there. So that’s my motion and I think it creates number one, a more complete record. Councillor. Before you debate the merits, I just need a seconder. We did correct the name for the delegate. So I’m looking for a seconder. I’ll second that. Okay, we’ll put it on the screen.
[1:12:51] Okay, it’s up, Councillor, I can go to you. We start by saying that most of what’s in this report for me is very welcome and I strongly support the idea of finishing the bike lanes, doing something about the stretch of Phillip Aziz Road which is exceptionally treacherous and dangerous right now and also the ideas about the advanced signal and the no turns.
[1:13:24] I do think however, and this is where I would like more information, the section under the pedestrian scramble, while it reached a clear conclusion, it didn’t in my mind give enough background information in terms of how Steph got there. So I would like to have a little bit more information about the evaluation that was actually done. When was the evaluation done and what were the results of that? I feel it’s necessary when Steph does an evaluation that includes numerical data that at least be included in an appendix.
[1:14:03] The analysis determined that pedestrian volumes fall below the thresholds. What are those thresholds and where are they published? I’d like to know better what those thresholds are, especially considering that there is a lot of, there is a lot of anticipated growth in the entire city, in the area leading to Western and particularly in that facility, along Western and along Sarnia Road. So I’d like to understand those numbers. My question is, did this report include a consultation with planning staff regarding the, we’ve had a number of studies that we’ve used looking at potential growth in the city and what the population projections are?
[1:14:51] Did this conclusion that there’s not currently enough foot traffic take that into account? Thank you, Councillor. I do see you had, I wrote down three questions here. Some may not be able to be answered by staff at this time, but I am gonna just, I guess, pose it to staff. And if they are not able to answer it, that’s okay, ‘cause I understand that this is a motion right now. The three that I have is this one can be answered. When was the evaluation done from the Councillor’s question? Through the chair, there was an initial assessment done after the environmental assessment was completed in 2023, as per the council direction.
[1:15:38] It was further scrutinized. Profit counts, pedestrian counts, cyclist counts were redone in 2024, and that data informed the reassessment and reanalysis of the intersection that has been done over the past several months. Okay, thank you. The thresholds question, the Councillor pose, I’m not sure if you’re able to answer that, but if you can, please do so. And then also the consultation planning, with respect to growth, the inclusion of that with the other areas of staff.
[1:16:15] Yeah, we tried to summarize the different key parameters in other guideline documents from other municipalities as they are available. This is quite a unique circumstance, so there’s less criteria available than other more standard, more common criteria. So we tried to summarize it in the reports, and as far as incorporating growth, yes, the traffic analysis did incorporate growth, and it also, as far as growth looking forward, there’s a recognition there that the Mobility Master Plan recommendation for a rapid transit corridor going through the intersection was also accounted for.
[1:17:04] Thank you, Councillor. Do we have any idea, maybe Mr. Meadows, or the city manager can answer this? When do we anticipate receiving the funding, doing all of the planning that we need to do in the city, such that we will be able to begin the implementation of the additional BRT corridor here? Do we have an estimate yet? Thank you. I’ll go to Mr. McRae. Through the chair. So the Mobility Master Plan identified this rapid transit corridor in the near term, which is 2025 to 2035, and that provides what was felt to be ample time to acquire, certainly the approvals can happen fairly quickly.
[1:17:54] It’s more a function of the funding, but we’re actively with our government relations staff monitoring and advocating for funding for the project and, you know, quite optimistic that it’ll happen within that near term horizon. Thank you, go ahead, Councillor. My final question here deals with the construction of a scramble. On the surface, it looks as if constructing a scramble involves painting lines on the street.
[1:18:30] What other physical implementations are needed to adopt a scramble? Thank you, Councillor. Mr. McRae, please go ahead. The infrastructure modifications are quite refined. It would require adjustments to the corners of the intersection and also some modifications to the traffic signal infrastructure.
[1:19:06] Thank you, go ahead, Councillor. Could you be more specific about the modifications? The reason I’m asking this is I want to understand the investment that goes into creating a scramble, even if it’s for an interim period, perhaps as a pilot study. Unlike sewers, you’re not digging up the ground to put in a scramble and creating a lot of infrastructure. Correct me if I’m wrong on that, but could you be more specific about what physically is needed to implement a scramble? Thank you, Councillor.
[1:19:37] Mr. McRae did answer the question. If he has any specifics to add, I’d invite that. But if you don’t, that’s okay. Through the chair, it would be quite detailed at a high level. It would be additional signals for both pedestrians and traffic movements, potentially also modifications to the traffic signal controller that operates the intersection. Okay, so we’re talking about signal— Councillor, through the chair.
[1:20:10] Through the chair. Go ahead. So it sounds like we’re talking about things like signals that are above the ground. Is there anything below the ground that would involve digging or disrupting the street as such? Mr. McRae, go ahead. Through the chair. We are proposing an infrastructure plan for the corridor that tries to minimize the work and the disruption before the eventual rapid transit total reconstruction. But getting into the signals for a pedestrian scramble, operation likely would trigger some underground work to potentially for the placement of new poles and underground cabling.
[1:21:03] Thank you, Councillor. Okay, so in my remaining time then, I just want to make the argument that while I applaud the majority of what’s in this report, and I’d like to see it implemented as quickly as possible, especially the north side of Phillip Aziz Road, which I think is a very bad accident, ready to happen any time. I would like to see some more thought given to some of the specific questions that I raised in terms of the numbers, the comparison to Kingston and Toronto, the comparison to any provincial standards. I should ask, are there any provincial standards in the traffic guidelines regarding what numbers you need for a viable scramble?
[1:21:49] Thank you, Councillor. I’ll go to Mr. McCrae. Through the chair of the provincial Ontario traffic manuals do not provide a criteria for a pedestrian scramble. And if the intent is to provide more information more clarity, I will also just mention that there’s a potential, sorry, a planned public meeting and further information sharing about the project plans through this vault, where we can get into more detail and have more discussions with interested residents.
[1:22:28] Thank you, Councillor. Just, no, you got 55 seconds. Yeah, and I would welcome that, but I worry that the way the motion is drafted. It would, and if it was passed by Council, it could be construed as a decided matter of Council that there was a negative final decision on the scramble. And if it’s the case that this is something that people are gonna be able to raise through the implementation phase of the mobility master plan, that’s fine. But this is the reason why I wanted to add some more substance to the motion.
[1:23:02] This does not bind the city to do anything. So I would ask colleagues here today to support parts and further that part one and part two of my motion. And I look forward to getting more information on this. Thank you, Councillor. Looking for other members of committee, Councillor McAllister, go ahead. Thank you, and through the chair, I would ask for, we get too far down the road, can we have these broken up and vote separately on each of these items?
[1:23:37] In terms of my first question, I’ll try to go in order as well. In terms of what’s being asked with the additional language and further that with part one, my understanding is a lot of these things were already included in terms of recommendations. Is there anything that staff want to flag that kind of caught them off guard? Just recognizing I don’t got this a little while ago, but I just want to ensure that staff are aware of these additions and that it’s really just what was already on the books. That’s my question, exactly. Mr. Mayor, I’m gonna go ahead. Thank you, through the chair. So I’ll start and if Mr. McCray has more detail to offer, we can go to him.
[1:24:11] So in short, so part B of this work, this is really all work that we are already proposing or doing. We don’t really, I appreciate the councilor’s desire to put that into a motion to ensure that it moves forward, but we are already moving forward on it. One flag, so some of these operational issues or changes. So to the signal timing does not generally go through a council motion. It’s an operational change that we make administratively. Having it through a council motion could actually set it up to be an odd exception in the future, where we would then actually need a council motion to change it again.
[1:24:49] When we have odd exceptions like that, it sometimes leads to non-compliance because people change, staff changes it, and maybe the memory, it’s forgotten. So I do caution against having an exception such as that in regards to the work being done on Philippa Z. So that is currently underway. Design is just about complete. We will be going out for public engagement and tender later in the fall. And it’s scheduled for construction in 2026. We are still in some negotiations with Western in terms of the force main and so on.
[1:25:23] So again, I caution about having this in a resolution that may be seen as binding our hands but when we’re heading into that negotiation. Thank you, go ahead, councilor. Oh, and just to point out, we are splitting up the motion. Thank you and through the chair. I appreciate the answers and that was kind of my concern too. I remember when we were going through the whole mass mobility plan, I was cautioned in terms of trying to bring individual items. So understanding what staff have to work through and the different complexities of the projects.
[1:25:57] I’m just wondering, ‘cause I know obviously the comments be made in terms of not wanting to do the work twice and I’m sure we all share that sentiment. We don’t wanna have to do these things twice over. But my concern is, I mean, we all know how long the BRT has been taking, obviously with the current legs we have. And my concern is, obviously, staff said in the near term but by delaying this on a hypothetical that we’ll get higher levels of government to fund a BRT route, which again, it has been suggested but we have no funding details. Are these projects, whether it be the road itself, the wastewater, or any of these things, these need to happen essentially with what’s going on in the area now because I don’t wanna hold up things that have to happen in the hypothetical 10-year near term we were talking about.
[1:26:44] If there’s things that need to happen immediately to deal with the issues we’re facing today, those are the things that I want to know because that’ll help in my decision. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. I will go to Mr. McRae. Through the chair. Yeah, the phasing plan that’s identified in the report tries to capture what is necessary immediately. So doing those urgent needs now, trying to minimize the impact on the traveling public but getting them addressed.
[1:27:19] So things that are necessary now and are not going to be subject to rework in the future, are the improvements to Phillip Disease Avenue. So that’s a need and no conflict in the future. The water main replacement along Western Road from Phillip Disease down to Platts Lane, that is a near-term need that’s been identified by our water engineering colleagues required for both growth and asset condition.
[1:27:56] And the improvements on Sarnia Road are also long-term improvements that aren’t really in conflict with any near-term work. So it’s mainly the work along the Western Road corridor itself that we’re trying to minimize, throw away and unnecessary disruption, but also recognizing that pedestrian safety at this location is a priority. We hear it from the public and we’ve heard it from council.
[1:28:29] So it’s implementing just enough infrastructure such that we can address that in the near-term while minimizing costs. Thank you, go ahead, Councillor. Thank you for the answers and to the chair. And just wondering, have any discussions with higher levels of government happen in terms of being able to access any funds? Or is that just kind of a wish list that could happen in the future? Thank you, Councillor. There’s another question that I had. I will go to Mr. McCray. It’s certainly in the works, as I mentioned, with our government relations colleagues, but I hesitate to get into detail.
[1:29:13] I haven’t personally been involved in those discussions, but that advocacy work has certainly started for the rapid transit projects. Thank you, Mr. McCray. I see the city manager may have some input, so I’ll go to the city manager. Please go ahead, Mr. Deere’s there. Thank you, through you, Chair. I think we continue to advocate for all different sources of funding for all the projects that we have. Obviously, this has been prioritized, and we continue to make those requests, looking to maximize as best as we can are involvement with the federal and provincial governments.
[1:29:52] No guarantees, of course. And obviously, priorities changed, but Council has identified this as a priority, so we’ll make that our pitch moving forward. Thank you, go ahead, Councillor. Thank you, through the chair, just one last question. I’m just wondering, and I appreciate the answer, Mr. McCray, in terms of trying to minimize the impacts, but again, I think the question that’s still lingers in my head is, how long do you delay doing any work, say, to Western Road, on the chance that a BRT might materialize? So I’m just wondering, ‘cause, I mean, I think some of these projects need to move forward, you’ve already identified some of them, but my concern is with any project that you don’t want this to drag on for decades, not saying that it’ll happen.
[1:30:37] I’m always hopeful it doesn’t take that long, but I’m just wondering, there’s nothing precluding those things from being addressed later, and to what we said earlier in terms of, we need to do these projects. I just don’t want to delay unnecessarily if possible, so I just want to clarify clarification that these things could be brought back in a later date as the Councillor, Councillor Trozweide, brought up as well. Thank you, Councillor. So the question is about timeframes, potential delays, how long do we think?
[1:31:10] We would get, I guess, shovels in the ground for an actual rapid transit corridor there. So I’ll go to Mr. McCray. Yeah, I think, sorry, I think, while the question, at least, that I was taken away from, that was just that this isn’t going to preclude any future work, and that is the case. One of the main primary improvements along the Western Road Court, or is the installation of a sewer going north from Sarnia Road, that’s a major project, major disruption, major costs, and it can wait, but it can really happen at any time, the timing is flexible, and then with that, with the reconstruction of the corridor, we would improve curbs, sidewalks, and all those details around them, making the walking and cycling infrastructure better.
[1:32:05] But that can happen at any time, and the work that, you know, the plan that’s proposed doesn’t preclude that in the future, if for some reason a change to the plan is necessitated. Thank you, go ahead, Councillor. Thank you to the Chair, I appreciate them, Mr. McCrae, and no, it was just, it was just making me think in terms of what Mr. Romero had said earlier, in terms of being overly prescriptive with the projects, I just don’t want to tie our hands, and there’s a lot of what-ifs that we cannot foresee, and obviously, funding from higher levels of government is always a big one that we’re dealing with all the time.
[1:32:39] Just my last comment, in terms of the scramble, I get where the Councillor’s coming from with this, but I’m just getting deja vu with this, it’s already come back to us a few times, and again, I don’t think anything will preclude, maybe in the future looking at things, but in the here and now, I just don’t think it’s going to happen, I don’t want to have staff go back and look at this again, when this would be the third time, so I wouldn’t be supporting that, and I’ll listen to what everyone has to say with the other bits, but I’m still not wanting to be overly prescriptive considering staff have already put a lot of thought into this.
[1:33:13] Thank you, Councillor. Okay, any other questions, comments? Deputy Mayor, go ahead. Thank you for recognizing me, Chair, I’m going to be brief, and echoing a lot of what Councillor McAllister said, and as Ms. Ramley confirmed, I’d be very cautious, and I don’t think at Council, I would be able to support the second clause, prescriptively putting in all of these pieces at this time, even as improvements happen, even without necessarily a BRT line from the federal government, design standards change, other realities develop, and so I wouldn’t want to tie staff’s hands to every piece of this in this moment, not knowing what could be different even six months down the road.
[1:34:02] I’ve heard everybody talk about it, and I’m just going to make this statement as a statement. There is no federal funding for another BRT line at this time. There may become some, but right now, there is no opportunity to expand that network until we get infrastructure funding from senior levels of government. We are going to have what we have, folks. So that said, I want to also comment on the final piece of the motion, which is a further report on scrambles.
[1:34:37] So I’m not necessarily, I don’t need to see another report on a scramble at this particular intersection. However, I would like to get a little more information for my own understanding about where and sort of what sorts of criteria would be utilized to decide whether a scramble happens or not. And I think it might be beneficial for all of council to understand where these may or may not be appropriate.
[1:35:11] I don’t know if that’s something that folks necessarily need to chase down Mr. McCray offline 14 times and get the answer, or whether perhaps an update to a future committee might be better just in terms of general principles around where a pedestrian scramble might be appropriate. So I’m looking to see if Mr. McCray could just comment on first what might be more efficient for him because I don’t need a report if he can just send it a briefing note, but I also think he probably doesn’t need 14 meeting requests from every member of council.
[1:35:45] But I would like to understand better where these might be implemented. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I’ll go to Mr. McCray on that. Through the chair, thanks for the question. Yeah, these pedestrians scramble operations are best suited to sort of downtown areas with narrow streets and high pedestrian volumes. London previously did have one in previous era at the intersection of King and Clarence. And I think if that sort of scenario that downtown core area, if we’re at a point where we can get enough pedestrians to make the signal function work effectively, intersections along the Dundas Place core, for example, would be candidates.
[1:36:41] So that’s both for, you know, the criteria is related to number of pedestrians, but then the geometry of the intersection and really small intersections lend themselves best to this kind of operation, if that helps. Thank you, Deputy Mayor, go ahead. That does help a little bit. I’m going to assume that other considerations would be traffic volume, similar to how we review all way stop warrants, turns versus straight through traffic, that sort of thing, ‘cause that obviously impacts pedestrian travel as well.
[1:37:19] So would those be factors that folks would look at? And I wonder if, and I just seen as Mr. McCray’s head is nodding, if maybe rather than a report back, if it might be amenable to staff to just circulate a briefing note to us at their convenience, as to sort of general considerations around pedestrian scrambles. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I’ll go back to Mr. McCray. Yes, I’d be happy to do that. I just touched on a couple of high points, but you’re right, there’s a number of parameters that would be looked at, it would also be modeled.
[1:37:56] As we’ve done in our assessment for this location in the report, traffic modeling impacts on transit, all sorts of trade-offs, so I’m happy to write something up for Council. Thank you, go ahead. That satisfies my questions for now, Mr. Chair. Thank you, I do, I had a few questions, a lot of them were answered already, but I do wanna ask my remaining, can I hand this over to the Vice Chair, please? I recognize I have the Chair, and I’ll go ahead, Councillor Faire. Thank you, presiding officer.
[1:38:28] So the reason I supported the motion is, ‘cause I did see a lot of the items here we’re already doing, but I do hear staff’s input on the leading pedestrian intervals, and the signaling of timing, and from what I got gathered, or from what I heard on last comment from staff, that’s something that is within, securely within administration, and not with Council. So I just wanted to confirm that, just so I can inform my vote on Part C. Thank you through the Chair, yes, so those would be administratively done. The no rights on red, we believe that would be subject to a by-law, so that would come through a separate report, but it wouldn’t be done through a resolution like this.
[1:39:09] It would actually need to be a by-law. The other ones are administrative, or in the works, and Council will see, the capital works again when we come forward with a tender report and so on, so there will be opportunity for input at that point as well. Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you, okay, and the scramble for the intersection. Like I am not supporting it, but I’m not against it either. I did want some more information as the Councillor put the motion on board, which is why I supported that as well, and I would just be detailed information on, I guess like, for example, for the thresholds, I believe from what I read in the report, that threshold is 2,000 pedestrian traffic movement on that, and I do see, I just, let me confirm the staff, it is 2,000, okay, I’m getting, I had nods there, so I did see that some of the thresholds from some of the studies that we’ve done are within like the 12 to 1,700, and I do see that the report did say that we are expecting more pedestrian movement, so I know that we could hit that threshold in the future.
[1:40:13] But that said, I also know that it was pointed out that this diagonal is two times longer than the examples that we saw in Toronto and in Calgary, and I believe in other municipality, and I just wanted to know if staff could give me an answer of that increase in length, that two times longer at this intersection from the comparative intersections that we’re speaking to in another municipality, what would be the risks on that if we were to actually put a scramble there with that extended length? Go ahead, Mr. Winkery.
[1:40:46] Yeah, the size of the intersection is a concern, because it translates to the distance a pedestrian has to walk, and that translates to the length of that signal phase, so it ends up being a very long phase, probably longer than a minute, which impacts the overall operations, especially at our location, the pedestrian volumes are lower in the morning, so any sort of off peak times, it raises concerns about driver compliance when you have a significantly increased delays, so that the projected delays associated with it are six to seven times, and so driver compliance becomes a concern, and that this was observed at the Bay Bloor intersection in Toronto, and I think one of the outcomes of that was the number of side swipe collisions doubled, and their rear end collisions went up by about 50%.
[1:41:54] So that’s one aspect of it, the other aspect of that long crossing distance is the accessibility, the accessibility, for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, so we need to make all of our traffic signals and their operations compliant, and for a crossing of that distance with nothing, no other guides, other than pavement markings and audible signals, it would become a challenge for a visually impaired or deaf-blind pedestrian to navigate. Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you, I won’t be too much longer, I just wanted to confirm some other things.
[1:42:29] For the scrambles that were cited in Toronto, how many scrambles do we have there, ‘cause I do see the report made note that two of them I believe were considered for reduced operation of a scramble in the day, and then there was partial operations for that scramble, and then I also know that some were shut down that was mentioned in the report, because there was risks highlighted there. I was wondering if you could just point out the risks that came out from those scrambles, and if you happen to have the number on the top of your head, how many scrambles are in Toronto, for example, citywide?
[1:43:04] If you don’t know, that’s okay, I just want, but I do want to know about the other aspects, and just what risks would potentially come out from that, from our examples that we saw? Go ahead, Mr. McRae, when are you? Through the chair, at its high point, I believe the number of scrambles in the city of Toronto was five. Two of those were in sort of abnormal locations. There was one, I think it was a five-legged intersection, and so that’s a unique scenario, and the other was in a very service story, like almost within a development, so sort of a unique setting.
[1:43:55] So of sort of typical municipal grid network streets, there were three in the city of Toronto. Around 10 years ago, so those were implemented prior to being in a guess at dates, but probably around 2010, around 2015, of those three downtown, one was removed. It was the Bay Bloor intersection that was removed, and of the distinguishing factors, there were lower pedestrian volumes, and actually the trends were somewhat similar to the Western Sarnia, and that it was a high afternoon peak, but their midday and morning pedestrian volumes were lower.
[1:44:44] Geometrically, it also had, the Bay Bloor also had similarities to Western Sarnia, in that it was a bigger, slightly bigger intersection, in that it had left turn lanes, and so the delays were more significant, and that was the location at which I mentioned, where their number of collisions went up significantly. So that Bay Bloor location was subsequently removed, so in their downtown core, the city of Toronto only has two locations left.
[1:45:18] They’re pedestrian volumes, like we have about 11,000 in a day, but the pedestrian volumes at those locations are up around 50, 70,000 per day, to the point where the number of pedestrians are higher than the number of cars, number of vehicles. So the risks are both driver compliance, the increased collisions that we saw out of Bay Bloor, and then another thing that was flagged in the Toronto scrutiny was just impacts to transit, and that was a consideration for them in selecting locations in that there’s trade-offs, right?
[1:45:59] There’s trade-offs to vehicular operations, and that impacts transit, and that’s another similarity to this location, that we know the Western Sarnia around the university, we have three times the transit ridership that we do around the rest of the city, and inserting a pedestrian scramble operation at this location would significantly impact transit, reliability, and schedule adherence. Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you, thank you for that answer, and I knew to know that with, I guess, the Mobility Master Plan support that came from Council, with the recommendations that came from staff do change the corridor there, so we do have a rapid transit corridor, so that kind of makes things a little bit more complicated.
[1:46:43] Like the Deputy Mayor, I am interested in potential scrambles for the future. I know we can’t do any motions here with that, ‘cause that would be a specific item, but in the future, wherever a scramble may work for London, I’d be interested to see just the analysis and background for that, and to see if we can bring one here, ‘cause in certain cases it does seem like it is very useful, but in this case, it seems like it’s not very useful. So that’s why I wanted to second the motion, ‘cause I wanted to get that extra information, but that’s the presiding officer there, but those are my comments from now, so I will go back to the presiding officer, thank you.
[1:47:23] Chair, excuse me, I’d like to put this to a put, I have to leave. Okay, recognizing that Councillor Cudi has to leave the meeting. Okay, I’m still the chair. Yes, and to the point about potential scrambles, from Mr. McRae, it sounds like downtown’s fertile ground, so there might be some coming your way at some point. I didn’t have Councillor Trasso on the list, but I will hand the chair back on to Councillor Faire. Yes, before I go to Councillor Trasso, I just want to hear from Councillor Cudi, I believe you were asking to put the motion.
[1:47:57] I’d like to put this motion to a put. I believe that’s for a council and not committee, but let me just confer with it. Chair, I have to leave, so I’d like to vote on this thing. Okay, thank you. Councillor Trasso put his hand up, but he’s got eight seconds left, so I can give you the eight seconds, and then we’re gonna vote if that’s the last one. Go ahead, Councillor. This isn’t on the substance, it’s the lack of detail on the report, and I do think we need a report back on this, and I don’t think it would be out of order to add a writer to this saying at a future date, we will get a report, I’m sorry, it’s hard to speak in eight sections when people are making funny faces at me, so I’ll just look at you.
[1:48:42] I think it would be appropriate to get a report back at a time convenient to staff on what the criteria are. Okay, Councillor, I do hear you. That is not a point of order. I do understand that we need to, we can’t, okay, just a second, let me just confer with the clerks here for a second. Okay, Councillor, just speaking with the clerk, if you wanted to bring a motion to council, but it has to relate to this item or a scramble, you can, but from what I understand, from your objection, you’re looking to speak or to get an item with scrambles in general for the city.
[1:50:14] If we had such an item, scrambles in general for the city, it would be a lot easier to parse this report. This report makes a lot of conclusions, but it doesn’t give underlying numbers or rationale. It doesn’t say, this is the source of these opinions, we’re getting, they’re not showing the work. And I think it would be appropriate to have at a future meeting such a motion, and since it’s on the floor right now, and we’re spending so much time on it, I’m wondering if this could be added as an amendment to this.
[1:50:50] So it can’t be added to an amendment as this. You can bring this to a future meeting, you can bring this to the regular agenda, bring an item through if you wanna add it to the agenda, but we wouldn’t be able to add this if it’s a report in general, but you can do that for a future meeting. And I know Councillor Cudi, he is looking to go, so I just wanted to resolve this, but you can bring it to another meeting if you’re speaking about scrambles in general. So that would be… So just so I’m clear, this motion being defeated, and it being defeated at council, would not preclude within a year, bringing up a request for further information pursuant to what the Deputy Mayor was saying.
[1:51:34] And the reason why I feel more comfortable having this reflected in the motion is, you never know what’s gonna happen at a subsequent meeting. I think the Deputy Mayor made a really good point about having this information in general. I would have liked to have seen it in the report. It wasn’t there. So that is correct. It’s not precluding a general motion on scrambles in particular. I’m gonna confirm with the clerk, that’s okay. And that would be the end of the time, so I am going to call the question. I will work with you.
[1:52:06] I’ll go to Councillor Pribble. You have a full five minutes. I’ll be very brief, a long time. Just as I’m confident. So for that work, I will work with you on that moving forward, but we have to bring it in according to procedure. Go ahead, Councillor Pribble. Thank you. What’s in front of us? I wanna be supporting one based on it, so that they included in the report and what we heard from the staff. Number two, when we look at pedestrian scramble, average delay to three and 340 seconds. That’s actually not the improvement for mobility in the city. And I did have a conversation with Mr. Macrae this morning regarding the scrambles.
[1:52:45] I actually don’t want any work to be done now because I believe that there are, every intersection is a different way. There are peaks during certain hours. There are some that are length theory times. So I really think that for us to come up, to have our staff to do the work now, and then every intersection has different specifics. I don’t think we can come up with a guideline that there is a certain number. Because again, that certain number is not based on 24 hours. It’s on the peaks. So even though it’s not in front of us, I would not support it either. And I hope we can go to the vote now.
[1:53:16] Thank you. Thank you. Last call, let’s call the question. And they’re being called separately. Chair, you’re calling you separately. So A is first, right? A is first, that’s correct, Councilor. Can’t speak during a vote, but I will say it’s part A, and that’s to receive the report.
[1:54:02] Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. So Councilor, that was a vote for the report to be received and that the delegation was heard on that. Okay, I’m not hearing a request for reconsideration.
[1:54:41] I’m gonna move to part B for the vote. So we’re calling the question on part B. The vote, the motion fails one to four. Calling part C with respect to the scramble at the intersection, following the question. Opposing the vote, the motion fails one to four.
[1:55:28] I’m just acknowledging that. Member, Councilor Cuddy, who will be leading the meeting. All right, I just wanna advise you that I’m gonna have to leave as well. I have a constituent in my office waiting for a 230 meeting. So I was hoping to stay a little bit longer, but I’m gonna have to take my leave. You’re on deferred matters, additional business. We have a motion from Councillor Stevenson that was submitted before anything. I would look to committee for a mover and a seconder for any motion.
[1:56:03] Councillor Pribble, you’re looking to move the Councillor’s motion, okay, and I’m looking for a seconder. I’m making one last call for a seconder. Okay, Councillor, you can bring that to council. All right, looking for a motion to adjourn. Moved by Councillor McCallister, seconded by Councillor Pribble.
[1:56:53] All those in favor, hand vote, all those opposed. We’re adjourned, thank you.