Open Council

15th Council Meeting

Open Council

15th Council Meeting

September 23, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:00 PM; it being noted that Councillors S. Stevenson, S. Franke, and E. Peloza (at 5:41 PM) were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED Councillor P. Van Meerbergen discloses a pecuniary interest in item 4, clause 2.5 of the 13th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee and related to Bill No. 341, having to do with a Project and Funding Agreement for Construction or Renovation for Licensed Child Care and Early Years Programs by indicating that his wife owns and operates a day care.

2.   Recognitions

His Worship the Mayor Recognizes City of London Employees who have achieved 25 years of service during 2025.

 

From City Manager’s Office: Tara Thomas

From Enterprise Supports: Brian Masuch, Cody Hawkrigg, Greg Dean, Heather Tomlinson, Kevin Pond, Lisa Workman, Robin Pyluta, Todd Turner

From Environment and Infrastructure: Achille Miniaci, Andrew Henry, Angelo Marcoccia, Brad Weber, Brian McQueen, Chad Archibald, Daryl Mcalpine, David Sumner, Dwayne Collins, Graham Robinson, Jason Hebert, Jeff Boss, Jeff Gooder, Mike Clements, Mike Thibault, Paula Bustard, Richard Thompson, Roger Ham, Sam Pawlaszyk, Sean McConnell, Shad Adkin, Shane Tryon, Wes Brownlie, Dario Novoa

From Finance Supports: Cathy Milne, Ian Collins, Jennifer Salhani, Kim Lacourse, Lisa Parent, Sean O’Donnell, Suzie Oliveira

From Housing and Community Growth: Alanna Riley, Barry Heath, Christina Koch, Sam Hajar, Tanya Nolte

From Legal Services: Heather Woolsey, Shari Lazaravitch

From Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services: Allan Arnold, Andre Waack, Andrew Cadieux, Brent Kirchner, Brent Taylor, Cedomir Ivanisevic, Charles McGregor, Cheryl Smith, Christopher Choja, Darren Banks, David Fiegehen, Gary Bridge, James McBride, Jason Timlick, Jason Figueiredo, Jason Pook, Kenneth West, Paul Schlinderer, Peter Havelka, Scott Fickling, Scott Fitzgerald, Stephen Didluck, Todd Sullivan

From Social and Health Development: Bozena Lisiuk, Cindy Foster, Evelina Morton, Fe Gutierrez, Joy Hoyle, Lori Quattrocchi, Mark Hughes, Mary Rymal, Phil Reynolds, Tammy Rockwell, Tory Gibson, Virginia Alpuerto

From London Police Services: Aaron Crook, Adam Steele, Alanna McCarthy, Amy Phillipo, Amy Birtch, Andrew Dugdale, Andrew Gough, Antoni Stanziano, Bernard Martin, Brian Armstrong, Craig Brown, David Payette, Donna Phillips, Gary Bezaire, Gregory Lang, Jamie Porter, Jeffrey Ordronneau, Jennifer Noel, Joelle Middleton, John Renaud, Luanne Devine, Michael Muscat, Michael Hay, Paul Devlin, Paul Yovicic, Paul Besley, Robert Fraser, Sandasha Bough, Scott McCready, Steven Vanberkel, Travis Wintjes, Walter Labacher, William Hewerdine

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

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

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending lease of 2835 Westminster Drive land by the London Police Service Board, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.1/14/ICSC)

4.2    Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations / Litigation/Potential Litigation / Matters Before Administrative Tribunals / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to labour relations and employee negotiations in regard to one of the Corporation’s unions, advice and recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation, litigation or potential litigation including matters before administrative tribunals and advice which is the subject of solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. (6.2/14/ICSC)

4.3    Solicitor-Client Privilege Advice

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and employees of the Corporation pertaining to the Replacement of Steam Services at City Facilities. (6.3/14/ICSC)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

That Council convenes In Closed Session, from 1:28 PM to 1:36 PM.

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

5.1   14th Meeting held on August 26, 2025

2025-08-26 Council Minutes - with attachment

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the Minutes of the 14th Meeting of the Municipal Council, held on August 26, 2025, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by A. Hopkins

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

6.1    Western Road and Sarnia Road/Philip Aziz Avenue Corridor and Intersection Improvements Project Update        

  1.    O. Sayyed, Vice President External Affairs, University Students’ Council, Western University and K. Henricus, President, University Students’ Council, Western University        

6.2    (ADDED) Urgent Situation Within London’s Housing Stability Program        

  1.    M. Oates, St. Leonard’s Community Services, C. Lasenby, Unity Project, A. Jibb, Atlohsa Family Healing Services and C. Moss, London Cares Homeless Response Services        

6.3    (ADDED) Updating the Program Guidelines for the Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Plan Per-Unit Forgivable Loan Program        

  1.    T. Casey, Holloway Lodging        

6.4    (ADDED) 1470-1474 Highbury Avenue North - OZ9508        

  1.    H. Froussios and L. Jamieson, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.        

6.5    (ADDED) 100 Kellogg Lane, 1080-1108 & 1079-1127 Dundas Street, 420 Burbrook Place, 351 Eleanor Street & 1101 King Street and 1151 York Street - OZ-25070        

  1.    Deputy Mayor S. Lewis

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

7.1   Councillor S. Stevenson - Urgent Situation Within London’s Housing Stability Program

2025-09-23 (7.1) Housing Stability Program - Councillor S. Stevenson

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That pursuant to section 11.3 of the Council Procedure By-law, leave BE GRANTED to permit Councillor S. Stevenson to move a motion related to item 7.1 on the Council Agenda related to Urgent situation within London’s Housing Stability program - (Federal Reaching Home / Ontario Housing Prevention Program (HPP)).

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take the following steps and report back to the October 20, 2025, Community and Protective Services Committee:

a)    provide an overview of any issues identified by partner social agencies that are creating a barrier or challenge to individual placement success such as tenant participation or refusal of supports or inspections, removal processes for tenants putting others at risk, etc.;

b)   propose recommendations to amend the existing contracts to address the issues identified in a) that are creating a barrier or challenge to individual placement success including potential “head lease” requirements of the agencies to facilitate supports and inspections, strengthening language in leases with respect to landlord responsibilities, and other potential measures;

c)    provide an update of overall success rates of tenants maintaining stability, and any trends related to those who are not maintaining stable housing repeatedly cycling through these programs; and

d)    provide any recommendations for strengthening tenant placement processes and success rates, including both service delivery by partner agencies, as well as advocacy considerations to senior levels of government by Council.

At 2:43 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair. 

At 2:45 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion be amended to remove the October 20, 2025 date and indicate “future meeting” instead, and to include a new part e) to read as follows:

e)    pause any new placements of “high acuity” individuals through the “Project Home” program until the report back is received and reviewed by committee and council.

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion be amended to remove the October 20, 2025 date and indicate “future meeting” instead

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

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

e)    pause any new placements of “high acuity” individuals through the “Project Home” program until the report back is received and reviewed by committee and council.

Motion Failed (5 to 10)

At 3:02 PM, Councillor D. Ferreira leaves the meeting.

At 3:05 PM, Councillor D. Ferreira enters the meeting.

At 3:20 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair. 

At 3:20 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take the following steps and report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee:

a)    provide an overview of any issues identified by partner social agencies that are creating a barrier or challenge to individual placement success such as tenant participation or refusal of supports or inspections, removal processes for tenants putting others at risk, etc.;

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take the following steps and report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee:

b)   propose recommendations to amend the existing contracts to address the issues identified in a) that are creating a barrier or challenge to individual placement success including potential “head lease” requirements of the agencies to facilitate supports and inspections, strengthening language in leases with respect to landlord responsibilities, and other potential measures;

Motion Failed (3 to 12)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take the following steps and report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee:

c)    provide an update of overall success rates of tenants maintaining stability, and any trends related to those who are not maintaining stable housing repeatedly cycling through these programs; and

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take the following steps and report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee:

d)    provide any recommendations for strengthening tenant placement processes and success rates, including both service delivery by partner agencies, as well as advocacy considerations to senior levels of government by Council.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Item 7.1, as amended, reads as follows:

That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take the following steps and report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee:

a)    provide an overview of any issues identified by partner social agencies that are creating a barrier or challenge to individual placement success such as tenant participation or refusal of supports or inspections, removal processes for tenants putting others at risk, etc.;

b)    provide an update of overall success rates of tenants maintaining stability, and any trends related to those who are not maintaining stable housing repeatedly cycling through these programs; and

c)    provide any recommendations for strengthening tenant placement processes and success rates, including both service delivery by partner agencies, as well as advocacy considerations to senior levels of government by Council.

7.2   Deputy Mayor S. Lewis and Councillor D. Ferreira - Contribution Agreement with Chelsea Green Community Homes Society

2025-09-23 (7.2) Chelsea Green - DM S. Lewis and Cncl. D. Ferreira

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Lewis

That pursuant to section 11.3 of the Council Procedure By-law, leave BE GRANTED to permit Councillor Ferreira to move a motion related to item 7.2 on the Council Agenda related to the Contribution Agreement with Chelsea Green Community Homes Society.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

At 3:30 PM, Councillor C. Rahman leaves the meeting.

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Lewis

That notwithstanding the Council resolution dated July 23, 2024, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to proceed with an amendment under the existing delegation of authority to the Contribution Agreement with Chelsea Green Homes Society to fill 18 units from the City’s housing waitlist, increase the affordable housing units to 30, and release the remaining Roadmap grant of $476,332 with the exception of any required holdbacks. The Civic Administration BE FURTHER DIRECTED to work with the provider on tenant placement to identify overlaps between the two lists;

it being noted that due to barriers encountered with CMHC financing, the overall number of affordable units in the project has changed from 41 to 30, whereas the city’s placements have increased from 5 to 12 to 18.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.   Reports

8.1   14th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee 

2025-09-09 - PEC Report

At 3:33 PM, Councillor H. McAlister leaves the meeting.

At 3:35 PM, Councillors H. McAlister and C. Rahman enter the meeting.

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 14th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of items 9 (3.4), 13 (3.8), 14 (3.9), and 15 (4.1).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) Fast-Tracking Housing - Mayor’s Direction 2025-001 - Status Update

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the staff report dated September 9, 2025, related to the ongoing work to action Mayoral Direction 2025-001 – Fast-Tracking New Housing, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) Housing Accelerator Fund – Enhancing Housing Outcomes: Allocation Review and Incentive Program Optimization

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated September 9, 2025, related to the City of London’s Housing Accelerator Fund – Enhancing Housing Outcomes allocation review and incentive program optimization, that:

a) the Civic Administration BE APPROVED to allocate the additional ‘top-up’ funding of $7,391,000.00 across the three new initiatives to support the construction of an additional 266 units; and,

b) the Civic Administration BE APPROVED to re-allocate the identified surplus funds in the amount of $6,044,818.00, to existing Housing Accelerator Fund incentive programs as outlined in section 2.4 and 2.5 of the above-noted report, dated September 9, 2025, to support the construction of an additional 289 units;

it being noted that the Civic Administration will report back on the City of London’s overall performance, including updated target counts and milestone development, through the Housing Accelerator Fund annual update reporting process as expected in Q4 2025.

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.3) Limiting Distance (No-Build) Agreement between the Corporation of the City of London and the owners of 4407 Green Bend (Relates to Bill No. 343)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following actions be taken in respect to the staff report dated September 9, 2025, as “Schedule A” related to the limiting distance (no-build) agreement between the Corporation of the City of London and 2196998 ONTARIO INC, O/A CASTELL HOMES (4407 Green Bend, London, Ontario):

a) the proposed limiting distance agreement as appended to the staff report dated September 9, 2025, for the property at 4407 Green Bend between the Corporation of the City of London and 2196998 ONTARIO INC, O/A CASTELL HOMES BE APPROVED; and,

b) the proposed by-law as appended to the above-noted staff report BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 23, 2025, to approve the limiting distance agreement between the Corporation of the City of London and 2196998 ONTARIO INC, O/A CASTELL HOMES for the property at 4407 Green Bend, and to delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of London as the adjacent property owner.

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.4) Updating the Program Guidelines for the Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Plan Per-Unit Forgivable Loan Program

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, with respect to the staff report dated September 9, 2025, related to Updating the Program Guidelines for the Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Plan Per-Unit Forgivable Loan Program, the following actions be taken:

a) the above-noted staff report related to Updating the Program Guidelines for the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Community Improvement Plan Per-Unit Forgivable Loan program BE RECEIVED;

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to revise Schedule “1”, being the Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Project Area Financial Incentive Program Guidelines, to include the following:

i) green development measures; and,

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee.

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (3.1) 5th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 5th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning Report (CACP), from the meeting held on August 21st, 2025:

a) the expenditure of up to $750.00 for the remainder of 2025 and up to $1,500.00 for 2026 to allow the Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP) to rent meeting space with audio visual capabilities for its Sub-Committees and Working Groups, BE APPROVED; it being noted that the CACP has sufficient funds in its 2025 and 2026 Budgets to cover the up to $750.00 for the remainder of 2025 and $1,500.00 for 2026 request for monthly room rentals for Sub-Committees and Working Groups;

b) the Civic Administration BE ADVISED that the Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP) supports the working group recommendations, with a preference for the additional flexibility opinion regarding ‘off the shelf’ vinyl and metal products on porches as outlined in the report; and

c) clauses 1.1, 3.1, 4.1 a), 4.2 a), and 5.1-5.5, BE RECEIEVED;

it being noted that the verbal delegation from J.M. Mettrailler, Chair, CACP, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (3.2) 230 Adelaide Street North - OZ-25082 (Relates to Bill No. 351)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of London Sports Group (c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design) relating to the property located at 230 Adelaide Street North, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated September 9, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 23, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Light Industrial (LI2) Zone TO a Holding Light Industrial Special Provision (h-4*LI3(_)) Zone; it being pointed out that the following individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

  • L. Sooley, Siv-ik Planning and Design; and,

  • D. Thomas;

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

  • a communication dated September 5, 2025, from L. Sooley, Siv-ik Planning and Design;

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

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

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

  • the recommended amendment would permit an appropriate form of development with a use, intensity, and form that is appropriate for the site and surrounding context;

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

Motion Passed

8.1.8   (3.3) 825 Wharncliffe Road South - Z-25089 (Relates to Bill No. 352)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Hafiz Qaddafi c/o Hashim Imtiaz relating to the property located at 825 Wharncliffe Road South, the revised attached by-law, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 23, 2025 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Convenience Commercial Special Provision (CC4(8)) Zone TO a Convenience Commercial Special Provision (CC( )) Zone;

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

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

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

-the recommended amendment facilitates adaptive reuse of existing building stock with a use that is compatible within the surrounding context without precluding future comprehensive redevelopment.

Motion Passed

8.1.10   (3.5) 1911 North Routledge Park - OZ-25080 (Relates to Bill No. 353)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of HLH Investments (c/o Zelinka Priamo) relating to the property located at 1911 North Routledge Park:

a) consistent with Policy 43_ of the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 the subject lands representing a portion of 1911 North Routledge Park, BE INTERPRETED to be located within the Main Street Place Type;

b) the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated September 9, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 23, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No.Z.-1, in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Business District Commercial (h-108*BDC1/BDC2) Zone TO a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC1/BDC2(_)*H28) Zone;

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

i) design the proposed mid-rise buildings to express three defined components, a human scale and active base, a cohesive yet distinct mid and a top with finishing treatment;

ii) ensure at-grade functions in Building ‘A’ provide a positive interface with Hyde Park Road by incorporating active uses such as commercial spaces, residential units, lobbies, and indoor amenity spaces; locate the principal residential lobby and individual unit entrances to face Hyde Park Road, and provide enhanced architectural articulation through a high proportion of transparent glazing, porches with direct walkway connections to the public sidewalk, and well-integrated all-season landscaping, to promote accessibility, walkability, wayfinding, and passive surveillance; and,

iii) design Building ‘A’ to emphasize the corner at the intersection of Hyde Park Road and North Routledge Park through enhanced features such as a principal commercial entrance facing the corner or Hyde Park Road, wrapped canopies, forecourts or patios, a high proportion of glazing, signage, landscaping, and lighting to create an active and engaging streetscape;

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

  • A. Richards, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

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

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

  • the recommended amendment would permit an appropriate form of development at a scale and intensity that is appropriate for the site and surrounding context;

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

Motion Passed

8.1.11   (3.6) 772 Reardon Boulevard - Z-25081 (Relates to Bill No. 354)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Drewlo Holdings Inc. relating to the property located at 772 Reardon Boulevard:

a) the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated September 9, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 23, 2025 to amend Zoning By-law No.Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R4/Residential R5/Residential R6 (R4-6/R5-4/R6-5) Zone TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_)) Zone;

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

i) provide for an internal walkway through the amenity space to connect to Commissioners Road East;

ii) provide an adequate all-season landscape buffer to screen the proposed parking areas from the public streets;

iii) demonstrate that any retaining walls along street frontages will not have a negative impact on the public realm and that there will be no retaining walls along street frontages; and,

iv) building entrances are to be oriented towards the public street;

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

  • C. O’Brien, Drewlo Holdings Inc.;

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

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

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

  • the recommended amendment would permit a greenfield development that is appropriate for the existing and planned context of the site and surrounding neighbourhood;

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

Motion Passed

8.1.12   (3.7) 1470-1474 Highbury Avenue North - OZ-9508

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Copia Developments (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.) relating to the property located at 1470-1474 Highbury Avenue North, the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject properties FROM a Neighbourhood Facility Special Provision (NF1(1)) Zone, an Open Space (OS1) Zone, and an Urban Reserve (UR1) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-7()) Zone, Open Space Special Provision (OS5()) Zone and Open Space (OS5) Zone, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i) the requested amendment is not consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, which directs planning authorities to protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of water by implementing the necessary restrictions on development and site alterations;

ii) the requested amendment is premature as it is contingent upon the results of an updated Hydrogeological Assessment demonstrating that the development will not result in unacceptable off-site impacts, including impacts to nearby private wells;

iii) the requested amendment does not promote compatibility between developments, as it does not appropriately protect the character and function of the surrounding area and uses, including, but not limited to, onsite natural heritage features and appropriate setbacks from the centre of the high-pressure Imperial Oil pipeline; and,

iv) the recommended amendment may constrain the ability of adjacent lands to develop in a compatible and coordinated manner, contrary to the intent of The London Plan;

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

  • H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

  • S. Harrington; - J. McNeil; and,

  • H. Jaggard, EXP Services Inc.;

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

  • a communication dated August 6, 2025, from S. Harrington;

  • a communication dated August 26, 2025, from J. and I. Teixeira;

  • a communication dated August 27, 2025, from W. and M. Morley;

  • a communication dated September 5, 2025, from L. Jamieson and H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd;

  • a communication dated September 5, 2025, from H. Jaggard, EXP Services Inc.; and,

  • a communication dated September 2, 2025, from J. Fraser, Old North East Neighbourhood Association;

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

Motion Passed

8.1.16   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the September Deferred Matters List, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.1.9   (3.4) 1103 & 1111 Westdel Bourne - OZ-25072

At 3:37 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen leaves the meeting.

At 3:41 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen enters the meeting.

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the application from Westdell Development Corporation (c/o) MHBC Planning, Urban Design & Landscape Architecture relating to the property located at 1103 & 1111 Westdel Bourne BE REFERRED to Civic Administration for additional discussion with the applicant with respect to an application amendment of reduced height and density considerations;

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

  • S. Allen, MHBC Planning Urban Design and Landscape Architecture;

  • C. Hames; and,

  • S. Welt;

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

  • a communication dated September 5, 2025, from P. Kitson, Westdell Development Corp.;

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

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

8.1.13   (3.8) 767 Southdale Road East - Z-25083 (Relates to Bill No. 355)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 1000077448 Ontario Inc. (c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design Inc.) relating to the property located at 767 Southdale Road East:

a) the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated September 9, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 23, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject properties FROM a Residential R1 (R1-4) Zone TO a Residential R1/Residential R8 Special Provision (R1-4/R8-4(_)) Zone;

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

i) screen any parking areas visible from the public realm with enhanced all season landscaping; and, ii) provide active uses on the ground floor adjacent to the public streets with a high level of glazing;

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

  • D. Murphy, Siv-ik Planning and Design;

  • M. Mankal;

  • S. Mitchell; and,

  • N. Al Tarhuni;

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

  • a communication dated September 5, 2025, from D. Murphy, Siv-ik Planning and Design;

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

  • the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS), which encourages the regeneration of settlement areas and land use patterns within settlement areas that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment;

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

  • the recommended amendment facilitates the development of an underutilized site at an appropriate scale and intensity within the Built-Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area and will contribute to achieving a range and mix of housing types;

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

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

8.1.14   (3.9) 100 Kellogg Lane, 1080-1108 & 1079-1127 Dundas Street, 420 Burbrook Place, 351 Eleanor Street & 1101 King Street and 1151 York Street - OZ-25070 (Relates to Bill No.’s 344, 345 and 356)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 1803299 Ontario Inc. (c/o City Planning Solutions Inc.) relating to the property located at 100 Kellogg Lane, 1080-1108 & 1097-1127 Dundas Street, 420 Burbrook Place, 351 Eleanor Street & 1101 King Street, and 1151 York Street:

a) the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated September 9, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 23, 2025, to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan, to: AMEND policy 820A in the Transit Village Place Type; to ADD a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type; and to AMEND Specific Policy Area 113 on Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan to include 1100 and 1108 Dundas Street, 420 Burbrook Place, and 351 Eleanor Street;

b) the proposed by-law as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 23, 2025, to amend the McCormick Area Secondary Plan, forming part of the Official Plan, The London Plan, to ADD a new policy to 4.9 Special Policies;

c) the proposed by-law as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 23, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), as amended in part the above-noted part b) and c), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC1/BDC2(12)) Zone; Light Industrial Special Provision (LI1(19)/LI3/LI4/LI5) Zone; Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC1/BDC2(13)) Zone; Light Industrial (LI8) Zone; Light Industrial Special Provision (LI7(16)) Zone; General Industrial Special Provision (GI1(7)) Zone; and Business District Commercial Special Provision(BDC(32)) Zone, TO a Transit Station Area Special Provision (TSA1()) Zone, Transit Station Area Special Provision (TSA1(**)) Zone, Transit Station Area Special Provision (TSA2()) Zone, Transit Station Area Special Provision(TSA3()) Zone, Transit Station Area Special Provision (TSA3()) Zone, Transit Station Area Special Provision (TSA3()) Zone, Transit Station Area Special Provision (TSA3(****)) Zone, Transit Station Area Special Provision/Temporary (TSA3(*****)/T-) Zone and Residential R2 Special Provision (R2-2()) Zone;

d) notice BE GIVEN under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act R.S.O 1990, c. O. 18, of the Municipal Council’s intention to designate the property at 100 Kellogg Lane to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined the above-noted staff report as Appendix “G”;

e) should no objections to the Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a by-law to designate the property at 100 Kellogg Lane to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in the above-noted staff report as Appendix “G” BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of Municipal Council within 90 days of the end of the objection period;

f) notice BE GIVEN under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act R.S.O 1990, c. O. 18, of the Municipal Council’s intention to designate the property at 1097-1127 Dundas Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in the above-noted staff report as Appendix “H”;

g) should no objections to the Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a by-law to designate the property at 1097-1127 Dundas Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in the above-noted staff report as Appendix “H” BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of Municipal Council within 90 days of the end of the objection period;

h) notice BE GIVEN under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act R.S.O 1990, c. O. 18, of the Municipal Council’s intention to designate the 415 property at 1100-1108 Dundas Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in the above-noted staff report as Appendix “I”;

i) should no objections to the Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a by-law to designate the property at 1100-1108 Dundas Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in the above-noted staff report as Appendix “I” of this report BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of the Municipal Council within 90 days of the end of the objection period;

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

i) ensure the Urban Design Guidelines 100 Kellogg Lane Design Guidance be referenced as part of a future Site Plan application;

ii) adherence to the Design Guidelines (found with the Heritage Impact Assessment, TMHC Inc., 2025) to the compatibility of the proposed development with on-site and adjacent cultural heritage resources;

iii) implement the recommendations from the Path Loss Study to ensure acceptable service levels, and the applicant be required to enter into a 99-year agreement with the City for the installation, maintenance and access of required new telecommunication infrastructure at no cost and to the satisfaction of the City;

iv) ensure the required bicycle parking for the non-residential uses are provided as part of a future Site Plan application;

v) ensure principal entrances are oriented towards the street to promote an active streetscape and mitigate impacts of tall buildings through the use of articulation, step backs, appropriate tower floorplates above the podium and tower separation distances;

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

  • J. Flemming, City Planning Solutions;

  • F. Avichi;

  • S. Barrett;

  • T. White-Lockwood; and, -

S. Vording, Carfax Canada;

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

  • a communication dated September 9, 2025, from J. Flemming, City Planning Solutions;

  • a communication dated September 5, 2025, from C. Butler;

  • a communication dated September 5, 2025, from S. Vording, Carfax Canada;

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

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

  • the recommended amendments conform to The London Plan, including, but not limited to the Key Directions, City Building and Design polices, the Transit Village and Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type policies, and the Our Tools policies;

  • the recommended amendments would permit an appropriate form of development in the Protected Major Transit Station Area at a scale and intensity that is appropriate for the subject lands and surrounding context;

  • the recommended amendments would result in the protection and conservation of significant cultural heritage resource;

it being further noted that should an objection to the Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a subsequent staff report will be prepared;

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

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That part j) iii) a motion BE AMENDED to reads as follows:

“(j) (iii) Implement the recommendations from the Path Loss Study to ensure acceptable service levels and to establish any required agreements for installation, maintenance and access to required new telecommunications infrastructure to the satisfaction of the City.”

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

At 3:55 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair. 

At 3:57 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 14, clause 3.9, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 1803299 Ontario Inc. (c/o City Planning Solutions Inc.) relating to the property located at 100 Kellogg Lane, 1080-1108 & 1097-1127 Dundas Street, 420 Burbrook Place, 351 Eleanor Street & 1101 King Street, and 1151 York Street:

a) the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated September 9, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 23, 2025, to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan, to: AMEND policy 820A in the Transit Village Place Type; to ADD a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type; and to AMEND Specific Policy Area 113 on Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan to include 1100 and 1108 Dundas Street, 420 Burbrook Place, and 351 Eleanor Street;

b) the proposed by-law as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 23, 2025, to amend the McCormick Area Secondary Plan, forming part of the Official Plan, The London Plan, to ADD a new policy to 4.9 Special Policies;

c) the proposed by-law as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “C” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 23, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), as amended in part the above-noted part b) and c), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC1/BDC2(12)) Zone; Light Industrial Special Provision (LI1(19)/LI3/LI4/LI5) Zone; Business District Commercial Special Provision (BDC1/BDC2(13)) Zone; Light Industrial (LI8) Zone; Light Industrial Special Provision (LI7(16)) Zone; General Industrial Special Provision (GI1(7)) Zone; and Business District Commercial Special Provision(BDC(32)) Zone, TO a Transit Station Area Special Provision (TSA1()) Zone, Transit Station Area Special Provision (TSA1(**)) Zone, Transit Station Area Special Provision (TSA2()) Zone, Transit Station Area Special Provision(TSA3()) Zone, Transit Station Area Special Provision (TSA3()) Zone, Transit Station Area Special Provision (TSA3()) Zone, Transit Station Area Special Provision (TSA3(****)) Zone, Transit Station Area Special Provision/Temporary (TSA3(*****)/T-) Zone and Residential R2 Special Provision (R2-2()) Zone;

d) notice BE GIVEN under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act R.S.O 1990, c. O. 18, of the Municipal Council’s intention to designate the property at 100 Kellogg Lane to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined the above-noted staff report as Appendix “G”;

e) should no objections to the Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a by-law to designate the property at 100 Kellogg Lane to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in the above-noted staff report as Appendix “G” BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of Municipal Council within 90 days of the end of the objection period;

f) notice BE GIVEN under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act R.S.O 1990, c. O. 18, of the Municipal Council’s intention to designate the property at 1097-1127 Dundas Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in the above-noted staff report as Appendix “H”;

g) should no objections to the Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a by-law to designate the property at 1097-1127 Dundas Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in the above-noted staff report as Appendix “H” BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of Municipal Council within 90 days of the end of the objection period;

h) notice BE GIVEN under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act R.S.O 1990, c. O. 18, of the Municipal Council’s intention to designate the 415 property at 1100-1108 Dundas Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in the above-noted staff report as Appendix “I”;

i) should no objections to the Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a by-law to designate the property at 1100-1108 Dundas Street to be of cultural heritage value or interest for the reasons outlined in the above-noted staff report as Appendix “I” of this report BE INTRODUCED at a future meeting of the Municipal Council within 90 days of the end of the objection period;

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

i) ensure the Urban Design Guidelines 100 Kellogg Lane Design Guidance be referenced as part of a future Site Plan application;

ii) adherence to the Design Guidelines (found with the Heritage Impact Assessment, TMHC Inc., 2025) to the compatibility of the proposed development with on-site and adjacent cultural heritage resources;

iii) implement the recommendations from the Path Loss Study to ensure acceptable service levels and to establish any required agreements for installation, maintenance and access to required new telecommunications infrastructure to the satisfaction of the City;

iv) ensure the required bicycle parking for the non-residential uses are provided as part of a future Site Plan application;

v) ensure principal entrances are oriented towards the street to promote an active streetscape and mitigate impacts of tall buildings through the use of articulation, step backs, appropriate tower floorplates above the podium and tower separation distances;

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

  • J. Flemming, City Planning Solutions;

  • F. Avichi;

  • S. Barrett;

  • T. White-Lockwood; and, -

S. Vording, Carfax Canada;

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

  • a communication dated September 9, 2025, from J. Flemming, City Planning Solutions;

  • a communication dated September 5, 2025, from C. Butler;

  • a communication dated September 5, 2025, from S. Vording, Carfax Canada;

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

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

  • the recommended amendments conform to The London Plan, including, but not limited to the Key Directions, City Building and Design polices, the Transit Village and Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type policies, and the Our Tools policies;

  • the recommended amendments would permit an appropriate form of development in the Protected Major Transit Station Area at a scale and intensity that is appropriate for the subject lands and surrounding context;

  • the recommended amendments would result in the protection and conservation of significant cultural heritage resource;

it being further noted that should an objection to the Municipal Council’s notice of intention to designate be received, a subsequent staff report will be prepared;

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

8.1.15   (4.1) Hyde Park BIA Expansion Project - Additional Consultation Reporting

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following action be taken with respect to the staff report dated September 9, 2025, related to the request from the Hyde Park BIA to expand its boundaries:

a) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to proceed with issuing notices in accordance with section 210 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25 of Council’s intention to consider the draft proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “A”, being a by-law to amend By-law No. C.P. -1519-490 “A by-law to designate an area as an improvement area and to establish the board of management for the purpose of managing the Hyde Park Business Improvement Area” to:

i) expand the area designated as an improvement area; and,

ii) increase the number of directors comprising the board of management from seven (7) to eight (8), with said notices to be provided to every person who on the last returned assessment roll was assessed for rateable property that is in a prescribed business property class located in the existing and proposed expansion areas;

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

  • a communication dated August 29, 2025, from T. Delaney and D. Szpakowski, HPBIA;

it being further noted that the verbal delegation from D. Szpakowski, CEO & General Manager, HPBIA, with respect to this matter, was received.

At 4:05 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen leaves the meeting.

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the staff report dated September 9, 2025, related to the request from the Hyde Park BIA to expand its boundaries, BE REFERRED to a meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee in Q1 2026, to allow the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association to appear before the Committee.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by H. McAlister

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

Motion Passed (9 to 5)

The Council recesses at 4:06 PM and reconvenes at 4:20 PM.

8.2   11th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2025-09-16 SPPC Report 11

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 11th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) Mayoral Direction: 2025-003 & 2025-005 - Amendment and Update to the 2023 Industrial Land Development Strategy

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Industrial Land Development Strategy: 

a) that the Industrial Land Development Strategy, as appended to the staff report dated September 16, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’, BE ADOPTED as Municipal Council’s strategy for developing municipally owned industrial land, including the following amendments:

i) a new Targeted Industry be added to Table 4 of Section 3.3 – Attract Targeted Industries – focused on attracting manufacturing operations that produce goods currently imported into Canada; and

ii) a new Priority Action be added to Section 3.6 – Framework for Partnerships – to identify gaps in the supply chain; and

b) that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consult the London Economic Development Corporation staff as part of this effort, to work with provincial and federal counterparts to identify supply chain gaps.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.3) Municipal Accommodation Tax - Tourism London Annual Report

Motion made by S. Lewis

That on the recommendation of the City Manager, Tourism’s London annual report on the expenditures of the Municipal Accommodation Tax revenue BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.2) RFPQ 2025-056 Redevelopment of City Hall Campus Procurement Update

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the procurement for the redevelopment of City Hall Campus:

a)  the report dated September 16, 2025, titled “RFPQ 2025-056 – Redevelopment of City Hall Campus Procurement Update” BE RECEIVED; 

b)  the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports BE DIRECTED to cancel the two-stage RFPQ 2025-056; and

c)  that the procurement for the redevelopment of City Hall Campus BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration with a report back to Council at a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, including the following steps: reviewing with the parties that participated in the initial mandatory meeting in the RFPQ process complications or barriers which led to them withdrawing from the submission process; reviewing the overall future accommodation needs in light of being a fast growing city and changing areas of municipal responsibilities; reviewing any expenditures for repairs and/or upgrades that may be required at City Hall through this timeline extension; and upon completion of the Downtown Master Plan review the recommendations and role City Hall plays in downtown vitality in light of the high commercial vacancy rates and the potential impact of US tariffs on cost projections.

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (4.1) Committee of Adjustment Member Resignation

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Committee of Adjustment:

a)  the communication dated September 3, 2025 from J. Fyfe-Millar BE RECEIVED;

b)  the resignation from J. Fyfe-Millar from the Committee of Adjustment BE ACCEPTED; and 

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

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (4.2) Covent Garden Market Board of Directors Member Resignation

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Covent Market Garden Board of Directors:

a)  the communication dated September 3, 2025 from J. Fyfe-Millar BE RECEIVED;

b)  the resignation from J. Fyfe-Millar from the Covent Garden Market Board of Directors BE ACCEPTED; and

c)  the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to advertise in the usual manner to solicit applications for appointment to the Covent Garden Market Board of Directors, with applications to be brought forward to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for consideration.

Motion Passed

8.3   14th Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee

2025-09-15 ICSC Report 14

At 4:22 PM, Councillor E. Peloza enters the meeting.

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 14th Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of item 3 (2.1)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by C. Rahman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.4) RFP2024-311 Supply and Implementation of a Property Tax Software System Award

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to Request for Proposal (RFP) 2024-311 for Supply and Implementation of a Property Tax Software System along with associated licensing for the City of London:

a)    the proposal for the supply and implementation of a property tax software system including annual licensing for a five (5) year term, with an option to renew for another five (5) year period, submitted by CentralSquare Canada Software Inc, 155 Wellington Street West, Toronto, ON, BE ACCEPTED in accordance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report as appended to the staff report dated September 15, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’;

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

d)    the approval hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the City of London (The Corporation) entering a formal contract, agreement or having a purchase order relating to the subject matter of this approval.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.2) Replacement of Steam Services at City Facilities

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to providing alternative heating, domestic hot water and humidification for City Hall; Centennial Hall; Central Library and Museum London:

a)    the report BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the financing for this project(s) BE APPROVED, as outlined in the Source of Financing as appended to the staff report dated September 15, 2025 as Appendix “A”; and,

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

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.3) Affordable Rental Housing Subclass Report

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the report on the optional affordable rental housing subclass as described in Ontario Regulation 73/25, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.1) Design Contract Price Increase: Wellington Gateway Transit and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements RFP20-29

Motion made by C. Rahman

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the Wellington Gateway Transit and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements project:

a)    the contract with AECOM Canada ULC for detailed design for RFP20-29 – Consulting Services for Rapid Transit and Infrastructure Improvements – Wellington Gateway Project BE INCREASED by $803,764 to $8,479,052 (excluding HST), in accordance with Section 20.3 (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated September 15, 2025, as Appendix ‘A’;

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

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

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

8.4   13th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2025-09-08 CPSC Report

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 13th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of items 3 (2.2), 4 (2.5), 5 (2.6), and 8 (3.1).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) 2026 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List - Call for Nominations

Motion made by D. Ferreira

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

8.4.6   (2.3) Western Road and Sarnia Road/Philip Aziz Avenue Corridor and Intersection Improvements Project Update

Motion made by D. Ferreira

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.

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (2.4) WITHDRAWN - Public Nuisance (PH-18) By-law and Administrative Monetary Penalty System (AMPs) 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.

8.4.9   (5.1) Urgent Situation Within London’s Housing Stability Program

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.

8.4.3   (2.2) London’s Newcomer Strategy: Choose London – Innovative, Vibrant and Global (2024-2028) and London Newcomer Survey by London & Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership

Motion made by D. Ferreira

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 (13 to 1)

8.4.4   (2.5) Project and Funding Agreement for Construction or Renovation for Licensed Child Care and Early Years Programs (Relates to Bill No. 341)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

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 (13 to 1)

8.4.5   (2.6) Interim Housing Assistance Program (IHAP) Agreement 2025-2027 (Relates to Bill No. 342)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

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 (13 to 1)

8.4.8   (3.1) 5th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 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.

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by H. McAlister

That part f) i) to iii) of the 5th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on August 28, 2025, BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee for consideration.

Motion Failed (7 to 7)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That part f) i) to iii) of the motion BE APPROVED

Motion Failed (4 to 10)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the balance of the 5th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on August 28, 2025, BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

That item 8, clause 3.1, reads as follows:

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 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.

8.5   3rd Report of the Audit Committee

2025-09-10 Audit Report 3

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 3rd Report of the Audit Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of item 4 (4.3).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (4.1) Summary Update from Internal Audit - MNP

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the communication from MNP, with respect to the summary update from internal audit BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (4.2) Internal Audit Follow Up Activities Dashboard - MNP

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the communication from MNP, with respect to the internal audit follow up activities update dashboard, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (4.3) Housing and Homelessness Value for Money (“VfM”) Audit - MNP

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the communication dated August 28, 2025 from MNP with respect to the Housing and Homelessness Value for Money (VfM) Audit report, BE RECEIVED; and that the communication from Councillor S. Stevenson dated September 8, 2025 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

9.   Added Reports

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 15th Report of Council In Closed Session BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

That clause 1 of the 15th Report of Council In Closed Session, read as follows:

Lease Agreement – London Police Service Board – 2835 Westminster Drive

1.    That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the Lease Agreement for the Lease of 2835 Westminster Drive, the Lease Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London (the “Landlord”) and London Police Service Board (the “Tenant”) attached in Appendix “A”, for the lease of City lands for the Tenant’s operational needs, for a term of 8 years and 7 months, commencing upon execution of the agreement, and ending January 25, 2034, with four further options for an additional five (5) years each (4) consecutive times by the Tenant, at an annual Basic Rent of $2.00 prior to taxes payable, which is legally described as Part Lot 15 Concession 5 as in 224251 subject to 124380, 224251 in the City of London, formerly the geographic Township of Westminster, County of Middlesex being all of PIN 08203-0010 (LT), attached as Appendix “B” BE APPROVED.

That progress was made with respect to items 4.2 and 4.3 as noted on the public agenda (6.2/14/ICSC) (6.3/14/ICSC)

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

Councillor S. Stevenson inquires with respect to the property located at 602 Queens Avenue. The Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports provides information to the Council with respect to this matter.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 341, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Second Reading of Bill No. 341, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 341, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 342, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Second Reading of Bill No. 342, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 342, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 349 and 350, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 349 and 350, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 349 and 350, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 355, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Second Reading of Bill No. 355, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 355, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 340 to Added Bill No. 357, BE APPROVED, excluding Bill No’s 341, 342, 349, 350, and 355.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 340 to Added Bill No. 357, BE APPROVED, excluding Bill No’s 341, 342, 349, 350, and 355.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 340 to Added Bill No. 357, BE APPROVED, excluding Bill No’s 341, 342, 349, 350, and 355.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 5:47 PM.

Appendix: New Bills

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (5 hours, 4 minutes)

[7:09] Test, test, test, test, test. You can do it. Okay, thank you, please be seated.

[17:31] Welcome to the 15th meeting of Municipal Council for this session. I’m gonna start with the land acknowledgement. We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwak, and Adewandran peoples. We honor respect the history, languages, and culture, the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area, the two-row Wampum Belt Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Silver Covenant Chain, the Beaver Hunting Grounds Treaty of the Haudenosaunee, Nanfant Treaty of 1701, McKee Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796.

[18:04] You hear on track Treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabe, and the Dish with One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabe and Haudenosaunee. Three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chippewaas of the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, the Muncie Delaware Nation who all continue to live as sovereign nations with each with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs. Also note that the city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact council agenda at London.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425.

[18:44] With that, I get to introduce our national anthem singer today. Jeremy Fox is a versatile singer, songwriter, guitarist, teacher, and operatic tenor whose passion for music has been a constant throughout his life. Determined to deter his love for music into a career, Jeremy graduated with an honors bachelor of music degree from Western University in 2020. Now a full-time musician and coach, he regularly performs both solo and with his band, captivating audiences with his powerful voice and dynamic sound.

[19:19] In addition to performing, Jeremy shares his experiences with aspiring artists, offering lessons in his home studio and online to students around the globe. Please rise and join me in welcoming Jeremy to sing the national anthem. ♪ Canada ♪ ♪ Our home and native land ♪ ♪ True patriot love ♪ ♪ A man ♪ ♪ Car tombra ♪ ♪ Se pore ♪ ♪ Te le payer ♪ ♪ Il se pore ♪ ♪ Te le qua ♪ ♪ Donistro ♪ ♪ Te le pore ♪ ♪ Te pore ♪ ♪ Please explore ♪ ♪ Keep our land ♪ That part, I’ll turn to the start of the meeting, which is “Disclosures of the Survey Member.” To declare a conflict on the 13th report of the Community and Protective Services Committee, namely 2.5, which is number four on the agenda, as it deals with childcare and the funding thereof, as my wife operates her own daycare.

[22:05] Thanks for that. We’ll have the committee chair make a note. Any other disclosures? Okay, great. We’re now gonna turn to recognitions. I have one recognition to do, and then I need to go to the podium for the recognition of the 25 years of service, but I’ll stand for this first one. And I’m really pleased to be joined in the gallery today by representatives from the Terry Fox Run. As you may know, and as I hope everyone knows, it’s the 45th anniversary of the Terry Fox Run.

[22:45] I had the honor of joining the runners to say a few opening remarks this past weekend at the run, and I can tell you just the inspiring stories of those who have been helped, and first off touched by cancer, but then running for family members who they’ve lost, or even people who have now through the incredible amount of money that’s raised, the research that’s been done to make lives better, improve lives, extend lives, and save lives, you know, this is a cause that is incredibly close to almost every lender, if not every lender, indirectly or directly.

[23:24] Terry Fox was an incredible inspiration. He’s one of the greatest Canadians, and for him to have inspired a movement that has lasted 45 years, and continues today to be at the forefront of raising money for this important cause, I think is something that we can all be very proud of, and Terry Fox actually stopped on his run within the city of London, and we heard great stories. On the weekend, we also heard from those doing research in the field, and those who have survived cancer, and have been inspired by Terry to continue that, and it’s just, it’s so rare to see a movement that continues to evolve and grow after such a period of time.

[23:59] I wanna thank the organizers, there’s some people who have organized or run in this almost, I think there’s one individual who has done every run, with maybe the exception of one who’s with us, but this is, it’s incredible, the level of support, so in honor of Terry, and in honor of everybody who’s participated in organizing this event in our city over that time period, we wanna officially thank you, and thank you for taking the time to come in council today. We honor you, and we support the work you’re doing, and thank you for doing what you do, so thanks. And for the next recognition, I’m gonna move to the podium.

[25:00] Have the city manager join me in the front. Well, the next recognition colleagues, and for those listening along, is a really exciting one, because we get to honor the hardworking employees of the city of London, and the affiliate agencies that we partner with. The 25 year service awards and recognitions represent a significant service to this community. These are individuals who have not only gone through their professional training, but then chose to make a career right here, within our city facilities, working for Londoners each and every day.

[25:39] For the work of this council, yes, we get to sit up here, we make decisions, we get to set policy direction, a strategic plan, but it’s the hardworking employees of this organization who brings that plan to fruition, who serves Londoners each and every day, who make sure the city runs smoothly, efficiently and professionally, and with respect and honor. And I know that we’ll be recognizing all of the employers. There’s many of them, but there’s about 30 of them who can join us today. What we’ll be doing is we’ll be bringing them up one at a time, and I’ll be recognizing them, giving them a small certificate.

[26:11] I know there’s some family members in the audience, so that’ll be your chance. We’ll pause for a sec to get a photo. But before we bring them out, I do wanna say just a few short words to those who are in the gallery today. Many of the employees are joined by their family members or loved ones who’ve decided to come here today to celebrate with them, but there are many others who couldn’t be here today because they’ve got busy lives and even some employees who couldn’t come. But I know for everything that I said about the incredible work they do, often they can’t do that without the support of individuals in their families, helping them out, supporting them along the way, giving them advice, having a long-serving career means there’s all sorts of ups and downs, and you’ve been with these employees every step of the way through the good times and the bads, and of course celebrating their successes and thank you for being here today.

[26:55] So I wanted to just take a moment to thank you for everything you do to support the hard-working employees at the City of London because without you, I don’t think they could do the work they do and this is your celebration as well. So thanks for being here today and we’ll make sure you get lots of good photos. And I wanna say too, for those watching at home, we had a lovely reception upstairs with a number of the employees and their families. Many members of Council, if not almost all of them, joined us upstairs to talk, many members of the senior staff were there as well, and it’s such a great time just to get to talk to people about the work they’ve done, the stories of their career, and of course, it’s not like everybody’s retiring, so they’re not done yet, but there’s many more exciting things to happen ahead and I don’t know if the City of London do you wanna add anything or, okay, so we’ll do some photos up here and we’ll start off, I know Deputy Clerk is going to assist us in reading the names and then the individuals will come out and we’ll keep going.

[27:48] And then what we’ll do is we’ll hold our applause until the end when all the employers are done, rather than clap for each one, but we’ll pause for a picture for everybody, okay? So we’ll go ahead, Sarah. From enterprise supports, Brian Massage. See, that’s Deputy City of Venture Parity, not listening to me to do applause at the end, he’s just so excited about team members.

[28:44] We just gotta break the rules already and celebrate everyone. You know what, we may as well do that, ‘cause I don’t think I’m gonna be able to stop everyone. Go ahead, go ahead. Kevin Pond. I know, we’re just gonna do that one.

[29:20] Todd Turner, Lisa Workman, Environment and Infrastructure.

[30:10] Shadd Akken, Ad Archibald, Olive Buster, Mike Coleman, Jeff Gooder, Andrew Henry, Don McConnell, Brian McQueen, Keel, Minniatchi, Daria Nova, Finance Supports, Ian Collins, Kim LaCorse, The Mill, Jennifer Solani, from Housing and Community Growth, Sam Hijar, Barry Heath, Kanya Nolte, from Neighborhood and Community Wide Services, Lori Votrocki, Carol Smith, Todd Sullivan, Social and Health Development, Cindy Foster, Corey Gibson, Joy Follile, Mary Raimel, from London Police Services, Gary Bazar, Dandasha Bowe, Walter Law Baker.

[42:25] I just wanna say Walter Rod, like the pinyest cutest family member with them today. And Cheryl’s the only one who tried to go back and to start the meeting, right? So, no, for everybody who joined us at the front today, thank you for your service. We really appreciate everything you do each and every day for Londoners’ community, making this community better, safer, amazing, fun place to be and a great place to work, live and play. Without you, the work we do can happen and so thank you for your continued service to the community. Thank you for your continued service to the city and on behalf of all Londoners, we really appreciate everything you do.

[42:58] So, please join me in a round of applause for thanking them. Great, I think most people can go back to work, except for the ones who have to stay in this room, but really appreciate it today and enjoy the rest of your afternoon, thanks. Okay, next, we’re on to item three, review of confidential matters to be considered in public.

[44:34] We have none, so we brings us to four, council on closed session. There are three items to go into closed session four. I look for a move and a seconder for that. Councilor Ferrara, seconder by councilor Van Mirbergen, any debate or discussion on that? Councilor Glosa? Thank you, Mr. Mayor, in all our excitement today, can we just find out what members are online versus in chambers or if they’re just missing before we vote? Yeah, I’ll have the clerk indicate what members are joining us online. Through the chair, Councillor Frank, Councillor Stevenson are online. And all the other members are in chambers, okay.

[45:11] So, no other debate or discussion? We’ll open the vote to go into camera. Councillor Lewis votes yes. Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, we’ll be moving to committee room five, folks. Okay, thank you, please be seated.

[55:34] All right, we’ve concluded our closed session. We’ll report on any matters later on in the meeting. We’re on to five confirmation and signing of the minutes from previous meetings. We have the meeting, the 14th meeting, which was held on August 26th. I’ll look for a move and a seconder of those minutes. Moved by Councillor Van Mirberg and seconded by Councillor Cady. Any discussion on the minutes? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. In favor, I vote yes.

[56:18] No other closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, communications and petitions. We have a number of items on both the, I believe they’re all the regular agenda. I’ll look for a motion to refer all of those items to the various points of the agenda. Councillor Hillier, the seconder by Councillor Hopkins. Any discussion on any of those items? Okay, all right, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Stevenson.

[57:21] Vote yes. No other, thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Yeah, I’ll just say if anybody, I know there’s a few people who are looking at me trying to vote there. If anybody has a problem with the vote and it kind of pops up, closes, pops up, closes, I just refreshed and it fixed it for me, just the top corner refresh. So try that and see if it works. If not, we can get IT to support you. Okay, next we are on to item seven, which is motions to which notice is given. There’s two of these, we’ll deal with them separately. I’ll just make a note for colleagues to put a motion on the floor.

[57:54] It requires leave first, the question of leave, to be allowed to put the motion on the floor. It’s not debatable or amenable. So we can put leave on the floor. And then the motion as it was written in the notice of motion is the first thing that has to go on the floor, it can be amended later, but it has to be the motion that if leave is granted, goes on the floor for consideration and debate and amendment and all the things that we can do. So I’ll go to Councillor Stevenson at first for her request for leave. Thank you, yes, I’d like to put that motion forward for the leave.

[58:33] Yeah, just give me one second. I just wanna double check if leave requires a seconder, which I’m just gonna go with yes. I’ll look for a seconder for leave. Yep, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Okay, non debatable and move straight to the vote, right clerk? Yep, okay, so we’ll do that now. Was in the vote, motion carries 12 to three.

[59:17] Okay, Councillor Stevenson, you have leave with the motion that you presented on the floor. Thank you very much, thanks to my colleagues. I’d like to put forward the motion that is there. There are a couple of little amendments to make, but I’ll put this motion forward to start. Yeah, and we don’t need to have you read that out ‘cause you put it on the agenda. So I’ll just look for a seconder for that. Deputy Mayor Lewis is willing to second to put it on the floor.

[59:49] So it’s on the floor, you can go ahead and— Sorry, point of order. Sorry, just procedurally, the Councillor’s putting what was pre-circulating the system on the floor saying that they’re gonna have other amendments coming to it. Procedurally, I think they could just move any changes they want right off the bat, or I know it’s an emergent motion. I don’t make it different that we have to go through all the amendments that they might have in addition to what’s on the floor, just procedurally. So Councillor, because it’s a notice of motion, my hands are kind of tied by the procedure by-law, what was circulated in the notice of motion, and the purpose of why the notice of motion has a lower threshold than an emergent motion, emergent motion has two thirds.

[1:00:29] This is just 50%. The reason why it is a lower threshold is because the public gets to see the motion as it’s articulated. And so that motion needs to be put on the floor. The Councillor has the floor so she can debate this motion. She can also move an amendment at this time. She only gets to speak once to the motion. So I just remind the Councillor that if you are gonna change it, probably best to do it while you’re speaking and get… But we do have to go through the process of amending it because of the notice of motion procedures and the procedure by-law. So appreciate the point of order. This is why we’re proceeding as we are.

[1:01:01] Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you. And I will move the amendment shortly. So I just wanted to say thank you to the Deputy Mayor for supporting me in getting this motion to come forward. As colleagues know, there was an issue that came forward around some safety concerns in the housing programs that we’re operating. And so this is an urgent issue, which is why I’m bringing it forward. It’s basically the same thing that happened when LMCH came and said, please stop putting the high acuity people in our buildings and the 122 baseline situation that we had where we had a lot of high acuity people.

[1:01:38] As it turns out, we’re placing high acuity people through our housing stability program into private units and apartments throughout our city. So I had a situation where there were a lot of safety concerns around this building. And then I come to find out that the criminality and the drug use and the damages that were happening actually inside the apartment was incredibly dangerous and unsafe. And it was all supported through taxpayer funding. The rent, the finding of the apartment, the supports while the person was living there. Hold on, Councilor, I have a point of order to deal with.

[1:02:16] I think to make the claim— Councillor, you have to stand up. It’s an alternative. So please rise and let me know what your point of order is, but you’re not debating a point. You’re making a point of order. My point of order, my point of order is to make the claim that the taxpayers funded the criminality, I think is just not warranted and really should be withdrawn. So it’s not a point of personal privilege than order. So it’s not a point of order, Councillor, if you want to make a point of personal privilege, you can, but that’s not a point of order.

[1:02:51] I’d make it as an extended point of privilege. It’s not to me personally in my own capacity, but I think it besmirks the reputation of the city and those working for the city, including the council. So I would do that. And it’s specifically taxpayer funding criminality. So Councillor Stevenson, I tend to agree with the language.

[1:03:35] I know, I think if I just ask if you could rephrase it, I think that would be sufficient to proceed if you’re okay doing that. Yeah, I’m more than happy to do that, thanks. Yeah, certainly not implying that, but saying that there are very serious issues here. So I do appreciate the deputy mayor working with me on bringing this motion forward. That being said, there is some issue with the current motion in terms of the timeframe asking for October 20th. So we’ve got a couple of amendments to put forward to this motion removing the request for it to come back by October 20th and just saying to a future community and protective services committee.

[1:04:13] And also adding a part E, which will pause the placement of high acuity tenants within the program until the report comes back and council has an opportunity to review it and make some changes. So like I said, it’s basically in line with what we did with LMCH and regarding 122 baseline and just looking to address this in another area of programming within our city. So I’d like to move that those two amendments.

[1:04:49] Okay, is there a seconder for those amendments? Deputy Mayor Lewis is willing to second. So we’re gonna put those two amendments on the floor, the change to, yeah, they’re both gonna be in one vote. Yeah, so the two amendments, adjustments to the motion are the piece about the date and then the addition of the E. It’s moved a second, I’m gonna get it up on the screen before I ask you to comment on the amendment. And so now we’re moving to just debate on the amendment. We can come back to debate on the main motion afterwards, but just give me one second to get up on the screen.

[1:05:29] Okay, that should be in there now so colleagues can see it. You can discuss the amendment now, Councillor Stevenson. Okay, thank you. So the intention with the amendment is to give staff the time they need to do this work knowing that there’s other things going on. And at the same time, address the community safety issue of both the tenants that are being placed and the surrounding community and nearby tenants and just pausing that until we get answers back. I did have a question for staff because in the amendment, we said high acuity tenants or high acuity placements within project home.

[1:06:07] I have copies of the contracts for lending cares and at LOSA, both of which have a section in the contract saying housing stability program where there are, it says right in the contract, they’re contracted to enroll high acuity people into the housing first program from the priority list referrals and to do so as quickly as possible. So I just wanna be sure that when we say project home here that this is going to apply to the housing stability program activity that’s currently being funded through the city.

[1:06:44] I just wanna make sure that where the amendment is worded such that we achieve the desired outcome which is that we’re not placing high acuity people without the highly supportive housing support. Okay, I’ll go to Mr. Cooper. Thank you and through you your worship. With these programs, the HIP has kind of broken up into two different solutions, there’s services. It’s the administration of the portable benefits and it’s supporting the agencies that are supporting the individual.

[1:07:18] So I read the amendment to be that project home would not match individuals to market units but that if there was a vacancy in the program itself, we could still match the person to continue to get those supports before they’re housed. So that’s why that information is in those other contracts because those agencies support the individual themselves where project home supports the administration of the unit. Councilor? Can I just get clarification there? How would they be supporting people in housing stability if they’re not housed?

[1:07:57] Mr. Cooper. Thank you and through your worship. A lot of the work that our housing first agencies do is around relationship building. It’s about building trust with the individual they’re trying to serve as well to ensure that they become ready in order to be able to assign a lease, that they have a source of income, that they have their proper ID and that they’re ready to be able to sign the lease and live independently. Councilor Stevenson. Okay, thank you.

[1:08:28] Just another clarifying question then. So the amendment as it’s worded, can I just get confirmation then that if this is passed by council, that we will not be placing highly acuity people into apartments until we hear back from on this report, that this will stop the placement of high acuity people until we take a closer look at this? Just one second, Councilor, Mr. Dickens, go ahead.

[1:09:07] Thank you, Your Worship and through you. I think we would look for council’s clarity on that piece and determining what that direction to staff is. As council knows, we do support high acuity individuals through the placement of or into highly supportive housing through both at Losa, indwell projects, a lot of cares. So we would look for council clarification if we are stopping the housing of all individuals who are scoring in an assessment of high acuity regardless of the housing type.

[1:09:45] Thank you, I just say in moving this amendment, my intention is not to do that. So high acuity people, we understand going to highly supportive housing units. This was, this amendment is to stop things other than that until we have a closer look at the program. So have we worded that appropriately? Give me one second, Councilor. So I’m going to go back to our staff because I think what I heard was the council asked about the operationalization of the motion.

[1:11:05] What I heard from Mr. Dickens is some clarity is needed. I’m going to ask this question. I just want to ask Mr. Dickens, what is the clarity that’s needed, that what is the piece of the motion that is causing you to interpret it perhaps more broadly than the councilor intended with the wording of the motion? Thank you, Your Worship. The clarity that was just provided by the councilor is helpful. We will interpret this as market rental units under the project home heading that represents about six organizations that support individuals.

[1:11:41] In our broader housing stability program, we administer financial supports to over 700 units. Right now there are about 187 that would be deemed high acuity. So we will treat this as anybody under that project home umbrella, those six organizations, and it will be pausing any supports to those individuals in any market units. Okay, is that the clarity that you need council because that sounds more narrow than previous answer? Yeah, as long as we’re talking about no supports to new, highly QD placements, and we’re not cutting off supports to ones that are already there.

[1:12:21] Like I think that’s obvious, right? Yes, there is a confirmation for our staff on that. Okay, perfect. I just wanna quickly say then, or reiterate again, that the point of this amendment is to give staff more time to do the work and at the same time address the safety issue of the placement of high QD people into the apartments. Like I said, same thing that LMCH had asked, same issue as 122 baseline. This is just the same thing being requested in another program.

[1:12:54] And that it really is a serious issue. Hopefully it’s only affects a small number of units and that’s what’s gonna come back to us to find out what we need to do. But what I saw were four units with no smoke alarms, three of which the exterior door to the street didn’t lock. There were women living in there. It was very concerning. So just pausing this will address the safety concerns that I have and at the same time, give staff the extra time that they might need to put this together for us. So I’m looking for support on that and I will leave it there.

[1:13:28] Okay, and we’re colleagues. I look for speakers. We’re on the amendment. So just the pieces in motion three here and we can debate the wider motion after the amendment is spent with. Go ahead, Councilor Palosa. Thank you, Your Worship. A question through you to staff. Just looking at the timing of when this report back is looking to be received by committee. Just looking for the timelines of when the report, as out noted in E that we’re gonna pause things for this report to come back. Of when is said report expected. Go ahead, Mr. Dickens.

[1:14:08] Through you, Your Worship, we would take a very cautious estimate here given recent announcements to speak of things that are gonna take staff time to focus and prioritize on. Given the breadth of this program, you’re probably looking at an early 2026 report back. Go ahead, Councilor Palosa. So potentially Q2 2026, through you to staff, knowing a lot of other things are gonna be coming their way. We’ll get clarification.

[1:14:40] Go ahead, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Your Worship, most likely late Q1. Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Your Worship. My, we’ll have many concerns about the motion before us today, but specifically on the amendment, looking to see when that report would come back, knowing it still has to go through Council, if Council ends up saying said report back for any amendments, more information that this could be quite some time. My concern lies that hearing very clearly that learners would like people with high QD, getting the supports that they need and not see them on the streets, that this could potentially delay that and that could actually even have units available for housing that are left vacant.

[1:15:21] While we wait on committees and reports, I won’t be able to support it. And looking to see if there’s not really a, whatever the October 20th date is to be removed, that could be called separate for the clerks from party would be helpful. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor. I actually just said that to the clerk. I was anticipating some of my want these separated. So we’re just working on that, but we’ll debate them together and we’ll just do the vote separate. I have Councillor Ferrera and then Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thanks, Mayor.

[1:15:53] Similar to Councillor Palazzo’s comments, I get a lot of communication coming in all the time about the urgent need that we have on the street and the urgent need that we have to place people into housing. I really would think that the city would not be in support of something like this, because this would equate to more people without the supports and more people on the street rather than getting into that housing. Without any alternative in the meantime, especially if we’re gonna get an update potentially by 2026 and a full pause for from now until Q1, which could be maybe four to six months, I would be very concerned on the extra pressure that we would see from that.

[1:16:33] We do have an issue here that we have a lot of people who are clearly falling into homelessness. The numbers seem to be increasing. We’ll get that information soon for the city. But just knowing that, I’d be very hard pressed to support something like this, because this will close more doors. So just, I know that the people of London would not be in support of something like that if they knew what the outcome of this motion would be. So I’m not gonna be supporting the amendment. I’m just speaking on the amendment right now. So I’ll probably have some comments on the main motion, but I’ll keep it there.

[1:17:08] Definitely, Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. So first, I will say thank you to Councillor Stevenson for removing the October 20th deadline. In speaking with staff, there was no way that they were gonna meet that in particular now with a recent strong mayor direction on some micro-hosting potential. That’s a highly important project for them to move on and focus on as well. Through you though, I will ask our staff, and whether it was Mr. Dickens or Mr. Cooper, I’m sorry.

[1:17:45] One of you mentioned that it would stop placement of high acuity, but I wanna be clear, this would not stop placement of lower acuity individuals into vacancies if vacancies through this program became available, is that correct? Mr. Cooper. Thank you, and through your worship, that is correct. We would still continue to look for the agency to match through the rent stability program and the rapid rehousing program. Thank you. I think that’s important because I respectfully disagree with my last two colleagues when they say Londoners wouldn’t like the outcome of this.

[1:18:18] I think Londoners see a housing weight list of 6,000 plus people. I think they see folks who are lower acuity. I think we see folks, as Councilor Ferra mentioned, recently falling into homelessness, who are lower acuity. And if we can get them housed in a couple of these vacancies now and prevent them from becoming high acuity, I think that is also a win. We know from what’s been happening over the last couple of years, with the hubs, with the units that London cares, and in well have provided highly supportive spaces at, that high acuity folks really do better when they have the wraparound supports in the building.

[1:18:56] And I say this with respect to the agencies that are doing this work, and I know it is tough work, and I know that, I know you have limits, and I’ve heard from a couple of frontline workers when you knock on a door, and the tenant refuses to let you in to do an inspection. There’s nothing you can do about that. That’s the reality of the job today, and I understand that. I understand in some cases, those frontline workers have actually felt unsafe, because a tenant has been in an escalated state when they visited, and that’s not something that is really expected to be for them to be able to necessarily deal with on the spot.

[1:19:30] So my concern here is that we’re making this about, we’re not gonna house anybody. We’re going to have the opportunity to house some lower acuity people, and those lower acuity people are often more able to sustain their housing. I’ll save my other comments for the main motion, but I do encourage colleagues to keep that in mind when we’re talking about clause E. There are low, medium, and high acuity folks out there pausing the high acuity folks does not mean that the units will sit vacant. Councillor McAllister.

[1:20:04] Thank you and to the mayor. Appreciate the chance to discuss this. I would say though, and this is a question to staff, and I think Mr. Cooper said in terms of how many units, roughly it was 140 or something you’d said in terms of high acuity. I’m just wondering if you could maybe speak to, you know, the number of issues that have actually arisen. Obviously there’s this one that is driving this conversation, like I know of one other, or someone has reached out to me, but I’d like to get a good understanding of, like, is this actually, you know, something that is widely happening?

[1:20:39] Is this, you know, once in a blue moon, what are we actually looking at in terms of numbers? And I understand, obviously staff have a deep dive on this, but speaking more in terms of, you know, generally, what do we hear as feedback? Mr. Cooper. Thank you, and through your worship. It was Mr. Dickens who noted 187 individuals in the high acuity program for six different programs. I think, you know, the agencies that support individuals are on a journey with the individual, right?

[1:21:12] They’re not there to tell the individual what to do. It’s walk alongside them in their journey. And I think life happens for a lot of these folks are coming out of a very difficult, complex situation, and they are being supported by the agencies in the moment as best as they can be. I don’t have an exact number of exact, how many of these we’ve had. It is a couple, exactly, right? That’s probably less than a handful, and the last time I spoke to one of our agencies. So we’re talking, you know, 180-ish units, less than a handful, and then a broader system of over 700 units that we administer benefits to.

[1:21:54] Thank you. I appreciate those answers through the chair. Yeah, I mean, and I hear what my colleagues before me spoke have to say. I think my issue is, I mean, when we’ve talked about high QD before, in terms of the touch points they have with other services, you know, that there’s that cost benefit that we’ve talked about before. But from what I have seen in my experience in terms of interacting with the agencies, and we had this discussion when, oops, excuse me, when 122 baseline came up, I don’t understand why these conversations can’t happen, just as a matter of course.

[1:22:29] If there are issues, we can address them. I’ve found staff very forthcoming, agencies reaching out to them. I don’t get a lot of these. I do, I had one other outside of the one that Councillor Stevenson had pointed to, and at committee, that’s why I wasn’t really thinking, this is not an issue that is widely needed to be discussed at this moment. I think these are things that we can discuss more generally with staff, with agencies, but in terms of the high QD, which this amendment is speaking to, I just don’t see this as the norm. I think it’s an anomaly.

[1:23:05] Yes, it’s a high profile one. It requires a lot of resources. I feel for everyone in this case, but I think just throwing this whole program out, pausing, we’re doing damage by going that route. I think there’s an opportunity to work with agencies, to work with staff in terms of improving those supports. I don’t think just stopping the program outright will serve us in the long run. I think that there are opportunities that don’t require Council direction to actually work with the people who are involved in this, to get to a better place.

[1:23:40] And so that’s where I’m at with this, and I’m not willing to support it right now. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, on the two amendments, I am supportive of changing the date, I think the Councillor for bringing forward this information at a future CAHPS meeting. I am not supportive of E when it comes to high acuity without a plan. I’m not exactly sure why we would sort of start to pick and choose what we’re gonna do with vulnerable population when it comes to supporting them and making those divisions, especially as we go into our winter housing program.

[1:24:33] So I will not be supporting E. Councillor Troso. Very much through the chair. I’m not gonna be supporting any of this. I think that this is a light, light, light, discriminatory, mean-spirited and retrogressive. And this is my opinion, so. Point of privilege. Yeah, I was already on it. Go ahead with your point of privilege though.

[1:25:08] Go ahead, Councillor. I don’t appreciate being attributed as mean-spirited. I didn’t say you were mean. No, no, Councillor. Councillor, it’s Councillor Troso. That’s not how it works. A Councillor can raise a point of privilege. We listen to the point of privilege. I make a ruling on it, and then you can respond. Councillor Stevenson, continue. I don’t know if you’re finished there, but I’ll make sure that you’ve clearly or to give it. I was finished, being it’s my motion being attributed as mean-spirited when, in essence, it’s the exact opposite. It’s compassion for the nearby neighbors and the tenants of these units. Okay, so I’m gonna stick mainly to the mean-spirited portion of the comments.

[1:25:45] And I tend to agree, Councillor, you can disagree with the Councillor’s approach. You can vote against the approach. You can articulate counterpoints. But much like I’ve asked in this chamber before, we don’t have to, or nor should we be assigning intention to Councillors on whether it was good-spirited or mean-spirited, we can simply debate the matter before us articulately and clearly, and then we’ll have a vote on it, we’ll make a decision. So I would ask you to withdraw the mean-spirited portion of your comments, but would it invite you to debate it vigorously?

[1:26:21] Councillor Troso. Discriminatory part is okay. That’s not under your ruling. I’m just talking about the mean-spirited right now. Okay, yeah, I’ll withdraw that. Okay, so that’s withdrawn. I’m gonna say that then the point of privilege is dealt with. The mean-spirited point was the point the Councillor made, you withdrew it. We’re gonna continue on and I would just ask, focus on the debate and the language and emotion in your points. I’ll focus, thank you through the chair, I’ll focus on the discriminatory aspect of this, ‘cause I think what we’re doing here is we’re creating subclasses of homeless people based on acuity levels.

[1:26:56] Now, I’m looking at section 15 of the charter, which is our Equal Protection Clause, and while they mention in particular race, national ethnic origin, it says all. So what I’d like to understand is, and maybe the solicitor would like to assist me with this, is does creating a subclassification amongst homeless persons, based on their level of acuity, potentially trigger a claim, not to say the claim would be vindicated, but is it a problem that we’re creating these categories of different homeless persons and we’re treating them differently under the— Can I raise a point of privilege again, please?

[1:27:43] Yes, you can, go ahead on your point of privilege, Councillor. Well, in terms of the discriminatory, the contracts that I’m referring to already specifically say high acuity, so they’re already discriminating against the low and moderate acuity, and only focused on high acuity. So I just, again, dislike this idea that discriminatory is bad when the contracts already are only addressing the needs of the high acuity and not the low and moderate. So I just, when you get into human rights stuff, it just feels a little sensitive.

[1:28:17] Just give me a second. Yeah, so I’ll make these comments on the point of privilege.

[1:29:16] I think that we have two Councillors, the word discriminatory can be interpreted in many different ways, right? If they’re essentially, I think both Councillors are correct here, criteria does discriminate against different people, the different criteria is for different classifications and individuals accessing different services. I think probably other words could be used, but I actually think in this case, both Councillors are probably using the word correctly and they’re not actually in conflict with each other. I think the Councillor is making a point related to the charter, he’s allowed to ask those questions, I don’t know if he’s gonna get to a question for those solicitor, but whether or not that gets answered or an open session will deal with it.

[1:29:55] But for now, I’m just gonna say to both Councillors, try not to, I think you’re both correct in using the word, you’re approaching it from different directions, I don’t see it as problematic at this time, but I would ask they both just listen to each other respectfully and we’ll continue with the discussion and we’ll get to the Councillor’s question. So go ahead Councillor Troso. So to continue, the class of homeless persons labeled as high acuity as we stated, in contrast to people who are low acuity as we stated, their placements would be paused.

[1:30:33] May I ask staff, in the interim during this period of review, where are they supposed to live? Mr. Cooper. Thank you and through your worship, individuals who are matched to these programs that aren’t housed are experiencing homelessness. So they could be couch surfing, they could be staying in shelter, family shelter, they could be living in a sheltered, it could be any one of those aspects. Councillor Troso.

[1:31:06] And we have, through the chair, we have in our regulations clear definitions of the difference between high acuity, metacuity and low acuity, is that correct? Mr. Cooper. Thank you and through your worship, it’s not a regulation per se, it is best practices in our community and using the what we call the vulnerable index service prioritization decision assistant tool, V.I. Spadat for short, is what we use to try and assess individuals’ support needs and it is a tool we are working on updating.

[1:31:39] Thanks for talking to yourself. Thank you, go ahead. Without attributing anything to any of my colleagues, I do feel that we are setting up to spare treatment here based on people’s status along the acuity thing and acuity assessment and they’re not going to be placed, which means they’re gonna remain in homelessness and I think it’s fair to me for me to say that. At this point, I would like to go back to my question to the solicitor, given the fact that there are going to be demonstrable and appreciable impacts on people’s lives based on their acuity status, does this raise potential legal questions of discrimination that we should at least know are there?

[1:32:19] And I’d really like to get a response from the solicitor on that. So ask the solicitor if she can respond to that in public session or not, go ahead. Thank you and through you. It’s not an issue I’ve specifically looked at to date. It would be something I’d have to take back and do some research on. Okay, Councilor. So that information is not available at this moment. Okay, and I think that’s reasonable because there’s not case law in this. It’s this particular thing hasn’t come up and this might be a case of first impression. So I’m going to vote against this.

[1:32:53] I think it’s disparate treatment. I’m sure the Councillors that have brought this forward mean well, and I don’t mean to talk about their intentions, but the effect, we have to look at the effect on people’s lives of these measures, not just what the intention in the hearts of the drafters was. And the effect on people’s lives of these measures is going to be disparate treatment that takes away their ability to lower their acuity by becoming housed, and I’m not sure what is worse than low acuity, the weak, I mean, high acuity.

[1:33:34] Do we have another category for where you go from being high acuity, Steph? Mr. Dickens. Through your worship, Noah is Mr. Cooper indicated. We use a tool that’s commonly used across Canada in the V.I. Spadad, and it produces a very robust assessment and then a scoring which gives a sort of categorization of an individual’s needs, ranking from low, moderate, and high acuity. High acuity, just to give Council some examples, are typically folks that have had prolonged or extensive experiences of experiencing homelessness.

[1:34:12] So years of chronic homelessness combined with potentially comorbidity issues. So, or concurrent disorders. So, battling an addiction and dealing with a mental health issue. Dealing with chronic physical pain while also experiencing homelessness. Having acquired brain injury or cognitive delays while also experiencing homelessness. Part of the project home that’s under this motion also includes the support of high acuity families through raw foam shelter. That can include parents with cognitive issues, children with involvement in the welfare system, the child welfare system, and those that are battling addictions, mental health, and chronic homelessness as well.

[1:34:55] So we just wanna make sure those are some examples as Council starts to weave into the technical realm of the work that we do every day. Thank you, that’s helpful. And just to wrap up, I will be not supporting any of these. I don’t wanna quibble over what data report’s gonna come back ‘cause I don’t think it should come back. I think we should let this program go. I think we’ve got people who are in very, very serious situations, not just looking at the security of their persons, but also the potential loss of life.

[1:35:28] ‘Cause I think one answer to what comes after high acuity is death. And I’m very worried about that. And we have undertaken as a city, this is not our obligation to create new positive programs. We have undertaken as a city to provide this program. And by removing the ability of people who meet certain definitional standards to take advantage of this program, I would like to get a report back at some point when solicitor is comfortable on the implications of this. ‘Cause I think there are grievous charter violations here. And I’ll leave it at that.

[1:36:03] Okay, I’ll go to Councilor Raman next. Thank you and through you. So I just wanna follow up on some of the comments and questions that have been asked so far. I do have some on my own. The first question I had as we discussed and as Mr. Dickens has just given us some examples around high acuity. I just wanna make sure I have a clear understanding of who we are talking about. And I also wanna understand how we get to that definition. So for example, when I do a quick search of high acuity and homelessness, I come up with individuals that are examples, somebody that might be a veteran that has PTSD for instance.

[1:36:46] So are we saying we wanna pause supports to veterans with PTSD? When I go into other examples, as you mentioned families, but I also note that there is substantial research saying that we tend to label folks, not we, the city of London, but generally in the work that’s done around working with those that are unhoused, we tend to label folks that are indigenous as having high acuity. So does that mean we as a council, as we look to potentially pause our programming, we want to pause our programming related to indigenous folks that may have been labeled higher acuity potentially in our systems.

[1:37:32] Are there other potential risks that we could be facing by making this, and I’m going to target part E of this motion for now since that’s what the amendment is, making this decision with the limited information that I believe we have in front of us today. So my question to staff is just, again, any other examples they can give us, I think the family example is very helpful on folks that would be labeled as high acuity that may be missed in this. And then I wanna ask a couple questions around where are people in terms of the supports they’re receiving if they’re about to be placed, because wouldn’t those people right now be at a place potentially where they have the supports identified, but now we’re saying hold on, we’re pausing.

[1:38:23] So I’m hoping you can address those two questions. Go ahead, Mr. Cooper. Thank you, and through your worship, I have to bear with me, and I might ask you to repeat that second question, but some examples as well are individuals who are discharged from institutions. So we do see a variety of needs from individuals that are discharged from hospital, discharged from the child welfare system, as Mr. Dickens mentioned, as well as from incarceration.

[1:38:56] So those are a couple other examples. You did hit the nail on the head as well with individuals, veterans with PTSD and others. The second question, my apologies. Thank you, my second question is, we’re saying pause any new placements, but wouldn’t new placements be people that are currently attached to supports that are ready with supports to go into housing? Thank you, and through your worship, yes, that is what we would be asking the agency to do. The agency currently recruits landlords to support individuals.

[1:39:30] They recruit and retain landlords to support the individuals. So it is a focus on trying to support individuals who are experiencing homelessness who may not meet traditional criteria for being able to sign a lease. So the agency would obviously continue to work with individuals, but those who are so those housing ready, air quotes, would also not be matched to units. Thank you, my last question. Are there potential funding impacts if we don’t follow housing first? Go ahead.

[1:40:05] Thank you, Your Worship. That may be a possibility. We would have to take time to go back to the ministry and understand if there would be any implications from commitments we’ve made in terms of how we’re gonna support the precariously housed in the unhoused populations in our community through our submissions to the province. I think it would be too early to tell if there would be direct financial impacts or loss of funding, but we know the ministry has been very clear with new rounds of HPP funding. There are some very significant and specific expectations that we immediately address the number of individuals that are exiting the streets into housing.

[1:40:44] So the province sees it as a direct route from A to B. What you see in this entire portfolio is about several steps along the way between A and B. So we would need to be careful with that and seek direction and input from the ministry. Thank you. And these are just my comments on the amendments. So I won’t be supporting part E of this amendment. I’m fine with the date. I do wish these conversations did happen at committee because it would be helpful to flush out these kinds of conversations there versus here at council. These are difficult questions to ask and when we’re just receiving information on motions and subsequent parts of motions, 15 and 20 minutes before a meeting.

[1:41:24] So thank you so much for entertaining my questions. As I mentioned, I won’t be supporting it at this time. And I do look forward to further conversations at CAPS. Thank you. I look for other speakers and we will separate these into two different pieces. Councilor Frank, go ahead. Thank you and appreciate you recognizing me through the chair. I did have a couple of questions for staff before my comments as well. I’m wondering have we housed any high acuity people through project home and have they integrated successfully and been successful in their tendency through the program?

[1:42:06] Even though they’re high acuity? Mr. Dickens, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. Through our regular business operations as civic administration, one thing that we do, Mr. Cooper has members of his team and the broader civic administration team is we have regular contact of meetings with the housing, various housing providers. One such meeting just occurred actually a little over a week ago. And while we were addressing and discussing some of the challenges, perhaps that folks are facing, there are success stories.

[1:42:41] And I couldn’t quantify those for you. It would be work where you’d have to go back to all of the various housing providers and gather those success stories, but absolutely through the ongoing work of all of the housing organizations and the supports they provide to tenants. There are many people that have been able to achieve a level of stability independence and those services have been able to be scaled back so that individuals and families can live independently successfully. Go ahead, Councilor Frank.

[1:43:14] Thank you. And following up on that, are there any low acuity people that we’ve housed through Project Home and Housing Units that have caused issues with their neighbors? Mr. Dickens, go ahead. Through you, Your Worship. It is a challenging conversation to have through the othering of classifications of folks. And I know it was raised earlier through a comment that our contracts single out or give prejudicial treatment to high acuity folks.

[1:43:49] That is because this program and these service agencies are designed to support that population. We have a whole suite of services that we do provide every single day to low and moderate acuity people. Acuity is not a fixed state as much as any one of us are in a fixed state of wellbeing. It changes based on circumstances. Can someone who’s deemed low acuity at the time of housing move quickly through and have their supports reduced and be successful on their own?

[1:44:22] Absolutely, absolutely. It happens quite often. An individual though, their acuity is not fixed. It’s quite possible absolutely that low acuity people could cause damage, could be noisy neighbors, could have hoarding issues. It’s why we have found ways through our administrative budgets to support things like the hoarding support program through VHA because they can support low acuity people as well. So yes, to answer your question, it’s quite possible that any tenant, any neighbor in any community could become a problem tenant.

[1:45:00] We’re thankful that we have organizations in place that perhaps the general public doesn’t have at their disposal to support individuals and keep those incidents few and far between. Councilor Frank. Thank you, appreciate that perspective. And then a follow up question through the chair. I’m wondering, so I’m struggling with this given that we got it, especially the specific amendment within the last two hours. So I wasn’t able to do any discussions or research or connect with service agencies who are running this program.

[1:45:37] But I’m wondering through the chair, would it be apt to say that staff who develop relationships with the clients would probably be the best judges of where to put the clients? And given that we have had learnings with 122 baseline, I’m assuming that staff and agencies have taken those learnings and are being a little bit more discerning. So I’m just wondering through the chair to staff, if the folks with those relationships with clients might be able to best understand the needs of the clients and where to put them. Go ahead Mr. Dickens.

[1:46:10] Through you your worship, that is exactly the point is that these organizations are the experts and this is the work that they do on a regular basis. They also, before a tenant is placed, they build the relationship with the landlord. They cultivate the opportunity to have a tenant placement in the first place. They walk through program expectations, participation expectations and support expectations that the landlord can expect to receive on their end as well. Commitments are made to rectify and remedy. Occurrences where there may be unit damage or cleaning that’s required.

[1:46:49] But well before a tenant is even placed, landlords are engaged. A relationship is formed. Expectations are very clear. And then those organizations are diligent in matching the individual to the most appropriate available unit that they have in terms of the location, the housing type, the support that can be expected and the ability to live in those settings. Go ahead Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, those are all my questions. So, and I also have one 22 baseline road west is in my word, I acknowledge that there are many issues that we’ve had with that building in placing very high cutie people.

[1:47:29] But some of my understanding, again, based on the audit findings that we’ve had in discussions, it’s also the volume of high cutie people in the same building without the proper supports and a lot of those issues have been addressed and staff, again, have been working diligently to remedy the outcomes of that. And so at this point, I’m not comfortable moving forward to this direction. I’d rather understand and get more information before making this kind of decision. For example, I’d want to understand how supporting one high a cutie person in a market rate unit with the project’s home supports, how that differs from one 22 baseline.

[1:48:08] And I’d welcome more information and discussion with proper input from the community and agencies to be able to make that deliberation. I feel like we’re trying to compare a couple of different things without enough background or time to actually make those proper deliberations. And so without that engagement and input, I can’t support it at this time. I do think this I also should have gone through committee and now there’s additional support at council. I think if that had been found during the committee cycle, perhaps it would have gone through. And I’m just not comfortable making this decision with the information we have right now.

[1:48:44] Okay, thanks, Councilor Frank. Other speakers who haven’t spoken yet? Go ahead, Councilor Layman. Thank you, yeah, this is a tough one. I think what we want to, I think what we’re after here is providing a safe environment not only for the high a cutie. I’ll get back to that in a second. Folks that are being housed but for their neighbors and surrounding community. And I agree with Councilor Frank and the concentration of many in one spot can cause issues I saw it in my ward firsthand.

[1:49:19] The trouble is, is we have this and I was gonna ask, what’s the definition of high a cutie? I’ve heard various comments from a staff through you, Chair. Where I guess if we’re trying to assess a level of danger to those in the surrounding area, to themselves, even within the high a cutie definitions, it’s challenging. I guess through you, Chair, I just want to ask about supports, ‘cause I truly believe that high a cutie individuals need support.

[1:49:56] Am I correct in understanding and what we’re talking about here is folks going to the apartment. And the level of support is basically the landlord understanding their situation. Or are there by the organization that is working in tandem with this, would that organization provide further supports on ongoing even daily basis to that individual being housed? Go ahead, Mr. Cooper. Thank you and through you, your worship. As part of the work that we’ve done as the system to sort of assist with the reducing administrative burden that agencies would have to pay ran to ensure direct pay and so on, we created the HIP program through an RFP.

[1:50:41] And that HIP program is there to housing identification program, apologies for the acronym. That program is there to support individuals, that support the landlords, they have landlord liaison roles, they have housing finder roles. And so part of that work is to do unit inspections pre occupancy and then support the landlord as well through some of those potential challenges that may arise during tenancy. The agency supports the individual and they have working relationships with the HIP.

[1:51:14] So the HIP manages the administration and supports the landlord and the agency is trying to ensure the individual is being successful in that placement. Go ahead, Councillor. Through your chair, just a clarification. When you mentioned support, is that like a regular daily connection with the occupant? Go ahead, Mr. Cooper. Thank you and again, through you, your worship. The support’s very obviously for each individual depending on what the individual’s needs are, what their willingness to accept services in that any given day are.

[1:51:54] But we do have criteria in our contracts that do establish some level of minimum visitations, if you were, levels of contact with agencies. We know agencies were struggling during COVID, but in many cases, they were still visiting people at their home with the proper procedures in place, supporting these individuals to be successful. So there is a commitment from our agencies, as Mr. Dickens said, to ensure and support these individuals to be successful. And they do, like I say, meet with individuals quite regularly.

[1:52:29] All right, Councillor. Thank you. Yeah, so, you know, if we don’t, if we go ahead with this, it’s not, as was mentioned by Deputy Mayor Lewis, we have 6,000 or so people on the waiting list. It’s not like the places will go unfilled. I’m very concerned about those that are defined. Again, I’m having trouble with this IOKD definition, high needs, et cetera, that are being placed without the proper supports. And the proper supports, I get it, you know, they require, we talk about this all the time.

[1:53:04] And who’s providing it, are we providing it as a city or the province or the federal government? I think we try with our limited resources and manpower to help out. But I wonder if we are, you know, able to do a proper job on that front. So, anyway, this is a tough one. I’ll leave it at that. Other speakers, that sounds pretty cool.

[1:53:40] Thank you, sir, the chair. And I will speak mostly to the main motion, but now, in terms of the hierarchy, which is in front of us right now, if you look at the case management, what kind of case management or how deep it will go into these individuals who are staying or having facilities through this program? Mr. Cooper. Thank you, and through your worship, each individual is unique, right?

[1:54:14] And I think their situation and their support needs are tailored to the individual. Agencies build those relationships with the individuals. They complete housing assessment needs. They complete housing support program needs with the individual to ensure that, you know, they’re achieving and working towards achieving their life goals, whatever that might be. So, agencies have that regular connection. We define a lot of different things in case management, but the outcome is really walking along with that individual to be successful in life.

[1:54:51] Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you for that, Mr. Chair. I do have a follow-up. As was mentioned, actually, by Mr. Dickens, in terms of the acuity, it’s not sad that it’s not sad for life. These individuals, they do actually very frequently move from low, medium to high. What kind of touch points, and again, these resources are quite limited. So, I totally understand that these organizations don’t have unlimited resources. But what kind of touch points progress evaluations are done if you do have that information by Mr. Dickens? Through you, Your Worship.

[1:55:40] I can’t speak to any of the evaluations, but I know organizations do regular touch points, as Mr. Cooper said, with tenants, often providing hands-on support through cleaning of units, junk removal, pest control, but also a lot of work in terms of referral to other community services, addictions, counseling, mental health supports, assistance into other programs in the community. When we look at, sorry, sorry, we’re just doing all of this on the fly, and trying to explain a massive program on the floor.

[1:56:27] So, when we look at some of the housing stability program pieces, an individual plan is likely to include access to support, including public benefits, so discretionary benefits, social assistance, pieces like that, access to healthcare, looking at individual financial supports around budgeting those activities of daily living, building participants’ communication skills to better respond to or negotiate with a landlord. We’re talking about people being able to take on their own leases, being able to budget their modest income to be able to afford both rent and groceries, and if they have to support a family.

[1:57:08] We would look at helping participants sorry, mitigate and navigate any repairs to their units. So, essentially, we’re looking at the whole person or whole tenancy, looking at those activities of daily living and building up that independence and that stability. This program, unlike every other program, is not 100% success rate. However, and whoever defines what success is, you are going to have people that are unsuccessful, no matter what the intervention is, be it psychiatric inpatient care or highly supportive housing or a rent supplement.

[1:57:50] But these programs exist to support the individual to be ready, to be housed to the best of their ability. They then negotiate that placement, they provide that wraparound care, be it through. Regular visits, check-ins. When a participant starts to withdraw those services, you know, you show up and they’re not home. You show up and they’re not home three times in a row, you show up in the doors locked, right? They’re not answering. We have suspicion of concern. Try to work with the landlord. Sometimes landlords are very accommodating. Other times, they may be less accommodating.

[1:58:24] Asking to give the tenant notice to be able to get access to their unit, to do a unit inspection. It’s in your agenda package, the organizations have outlined how they escalate those concerns, right? If there’s a suspicion of a fire concern, we contact the London Fire Department and they’re able to issue other authority that we cannot and be able to go in and inspect those units. We try to really enforce the participation to ensure people understand in whatever cognitive ability they have the consequences of a lack of participation and sometimes those housing placements are unsuccessful.

[1:59:00] So hopefully that captures everything. Again, this is a very large program. It’s only in addition to everything else we do. And so it’s a little difficult to give you an entire scope and rationale on the floor. Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you very much for your answers and I will speak to the main motion afterwards. No more questions at this time. Thank you. I’ll hand the chair over to Deputy Mayor Lewis and put myself in the list. Go ahead Mayor Morion.

[1:59:41] Yes, I’ll be brief. So I support when this is divided, we’re moving the date. We’re going to support E. I think there’s a number of Councillors who I’ve identified that there’s some challenges with understanding the full consequences of what would happen with E. I think we’re trying to compartmentalize individuals into, you know, we pause placement of highly supportive house individuals. These things will happen. These things might get better. And I think from the answers our staff have given us is much more complex than that, right? You can have highly, high QD individuals who are quite successful without needing full level of high QD supports.

[2:00:17] You can have low QD individuals who are not successful with the supports that they give. And it’s very much individual based. And I think if there are challenges with some specific apartments, I think Mr. Cooper said maybe a handful in the program might be some challenging. I’d much rather our staff focus on how can we assist in those situations rather than cast a wide blanket net that I don’t think we understand the full consequences of how it would impact people’s access to housing. And some people who has was prescribed may have been on the street for many years. This may be their opportunity to move forward for others. It may not work out so well.

[2:00:50] So, you know, this is a very complex issue. And I certainly understand how colleagues are probably struggling with this decision and thinking I’m not really sure which way I want to vote because I think where we all care about is we want every person who we put in housing no matter what through our QD and what type of housing they’re in to be as successful as possible. And that just simply is not the case for every individual. So I think that in the main motion, I’ll speak to it later. There are parts of this where we can get more information. But in the absence of that information, I’m myself, I’m not willing to hit pause on this part of the program without fully understanding the consequences of it.

[2:01:23] And I would much rather hear back from the agencies about supports that they might need to identify, you know, and perhaps avoid some of the situations that we’ve experienced in the past. I think the letter that they wrote about steps that they take was quite clear in the way that they approach some of their programs, the ways they reach out for help. And I know this item just simply being discussed by us today elevates it to a level to hear that, you know, our staff and the agencies here that we want to try to help in these situations. We want people to be successful. We recognize that not every situation is going to be that just because there’s a handful of situations that may not be that way.

[2:01:56] And they may be very impactful on the landlord, on the units, maybe even on the community surrounding them. Does not mean that the overall program is not successful. We have to be careful about unintended consequences of making a quick decision without all of the information before us. So I’ll look forward to the debate on the main motion, but I won’t be supporting part E of the amendment. I’ll support the date change. Thank you, Mayor Morgan. I’ll return the chair to you. I have no one else on the speakers list. Okay, any other speakers to this? Okay, we’re going to divide this into two pieces.

[2:02:32] We’re going to do the removal of the date first and it’s going to change to future meeting instead. So we’ll do that piece. I’m going to use the same over a seconder for both of these pieces. I see them okay with that. So we’ll open just the date part for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to two.

[2:03:23] Okay, and now on the addition of the new part E, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion fails, five to 10. Okay, we’re going to return to the main motion.

[2:04:06] I’m going to look for speakers on the main motion. Councillor Stevenson, you spoke already. You said you’re going to speak for a little bit and then introduce the amendment. It’s an amended motion, right? Yeah, you were actually right. I do actually need a mover for the as amended motion because we changed the date. So I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for the as amended motion. Councillor Stevenson is willing to move it seconded by the Deputy Mayor Lewis on the as amended motion.

[2:04:42] The new motion, new speakers list. So Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you, I just want to be clear that this was brought to the committee responsible for looking at this and there was no seconder and no willingness to discuss it at committee. I do want to say too that these concerns, we reduced the ratio for LMCH given the safety and the financial concerns with damages. And there wasn’t the same discussion about, oh, well, where are these people going to go? There was a recognition that these were causing serious safety issues for the vulnerable people living in our buildings and it was causing a lot of damages to the apartment units.

[2:05:23] And this is the same thing. So I don’t want to see us passing that risk down to private apartments and other vulnerable people who are living in apartments where people who are struggling as was seen in that video. It’s a huge concern, you know, nearby to that adjacent to that video, that apartment was a single mom and kids. And if we’re going to run these programs, even if it’s only a handful of units, we need to take the time to look at what isn’t working.

[2:05:59] There’s lots of things that are working, there are things that are not working and how do we make amendments to the contracts and provide the safety and security that the tenant that were, the vulnerable tenant that we’re looking to care for gets, as well as the surrounding community and the workers. So in the, I saw four apartments cared for by three different agencies in equal damages, unsafe living conditions, unsecured doors. These units get taken over by several people.

[2:06:33] There could be eight, 10 people in these buildings. The agreements are between the tenant and the landlord. So the landlord gets stuck with having to deal with the landlord tenant board or somehow canceling the agreement when the agency pulls out. And the damages, what I’m hearing is the damages are significant, they’re not always reimbursed, they’re not getting the support that they need. I had another landlord reach out to me that’s had to file a legal claim for damages. So I’m not saying that the whole program gets to be thrown out.

[2:07:08] The point of the motion was how can we address the issues that are happening in these apartments? How do we make it better? That’s what this is about. How do we make it better? How do we make it safer? So I’m really looking for support on this motion so that we can address, even if it only happens a few times. If you talk to landlords, it only takes a couple of really problematic tenants to cause a lot of safety issues in a building. And so this is an opportunity, yes, for us to improve this program, to look at what’s not working, to get the information on the statistics, how big a problem is it?

[2:07:46] Maybe it is only a handful, that would be great to hear. Four out of the four apartments that I saw were like that, and I’ve had other people reach out. And we did have the chair of LMCH feel that the issue was significant enough to bring it to our attention and ask us to reduce the ratio. And of course, we all know what happened at 122 baseline. And that’s still an ongoing issue. So maybe there’s an opportunity to create occupancy agreements. That’s what I understand is happening in the housing. So that the agency is able to maintain a safe environment for the rest of the vulnerable people.

[2:08:22] If a tenant truly isn’t working out, there’s an opportunity to remove that person to protect the safety of the others. And if these agreements are tenancy agreements, then as we know, it can be a very long and unsafe run trying to correct that situation. So I’m all for supporting these people with high support needs, but we need to do it in a way that doesn’t put the rest of the community at risk. I don’t like to get into too many details around the ones that I have seen, but it is a significant impact on the community.

[2:08:58] And to find out that units that were such a problem to the neighborhood were overseen by our agencies and taxpayer funded is difficult to talk about quite frankly. And so there is an urgency around this. I understand that staff might need a little bit more time, but I would really ask that we get back. It is quickly as possible, even if it’s just a small section that allows us to move forward with making changes. 30 seconds. That will assist in making this safer, safer and more respectful for the people we’re trying to help and the people who are working with them and living nearby.

[2:09:39] Councillor Ferra, you’re next. Thank you, Mayor. So I guess I’m gonna have to start with, this motion was not brought to committee. The motion that was brought to committee, committee decided not to second it. There’s nothing wrong with procedure on that, but this is a much different motion. It’s probably 80% different. So the comments that I heard that this was brought to committee and the committee didn’t hear it, that’s just frankly not true. Point of privilege. Okay, a point of personal privilege. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Sorry, I’m just trying to get my camera here. I can’t get my camera working.

[2:10:16] That’s okay. Yeah, my point of personal privilege is the thing that is not correct. There was a seconder on this motion that was asked to be discussed at committee. Yes, this motion is a little bit different, but that is the work that was supposed to have been done at committee, was done outside of committee and brought to council because there was no discussion allowed at committee and it was not procedurally correct because my correspondence was not accepted at committee, which means that I had to bring forward a notice of motion too.

[2:10:49] So the community and protective services committee, we all agreed work should be done at the committee level. I brought it forward and there was not a willingness to debate the issue. It wasn’t the motion, but the issue at committee. So I’m gonna take a second on this. Okay, so I’m gonna deem that not a point of personal privilege.

[2:13:11] It’s more of a procedural issue and I’ll be frank here. We can spend a whole bunch of time talking about what did or didn’t happen at committee and we can talk about the procedures or we can actually deal with what is before us before council and that is a notice of motion that was filed on time, has leave, is able to be debated and so my strong encouragement to members is focus on what’s before us. I don’t think any of us really need to dwell on the committee at this point because I just don’t see the purpose of how that’s gonna move the business of the council forward at this moment in time in which we have a motion on the floor that we’re debating.

[2:13:48] So it’s not really a point of personal privilege. I encourage councilors just to focus on the motion that’s before us and this iteration of the motion, that that is what’s on the floor. The committee staff, people wanna talk procedure. Clerk and I can look into it. We can give some guidance on that, but we’re not gonna do that at this time at council. We’re gonna focus on actually the businesses before us, which is a notice of motion that has been given leave that is on the floor to debate. So I’m gonna just say that’s not a point of personal privilege. I’m gonna allow the council to continue on and we’re gonna focus on the motion before us.

[2:14:22] Thank you, Mayor. I don’t want to steer the council a little bit too off. The reason I made the comment was because it was not true. And other things, you know, when the councilor says that this motion’s a little bit different, it’s a lot different. So my point is is there’s a lot of information here that I’m trying to parse through and there’s a lot of information here that’s new. A lot of information here that I know is not necessarily true. And in the end, I haven’t had all the questions answered. I had some really good questions come from this council. For example, how many housing units are available and how many incidents do we really see?

[2:14:56] I heard the executive director or general manager, I believe of St. Leonard say this happens a handful of times. We don’t have the information of really what the incidence is of how many times we see this occurrence. I do know them in just the regular market, great rental space situations like this come up as well. I’m a landlord. I’ve had situations similar to this in my past. So I do know that this is something that just happens in this space, in this type of business. And I’m really hesitant to have a blanket solution when we have very small number of issues that come up, a number of issues that we would reasonably expect to happen just statistically speaking when we’re dealing with the amount of people.

[2:15:38] Because I haven’t had that information given to us and because this is such a big decision, I don’t believe it would be wise to make these decisions right now without that information. That’s number one. Number two, I wonder what threshold it would take, what threshold it would take of how many times we’d see this incident before we would come in with a motion like this. I do believe that this is probably a discussion about the resources and support that we provide to the agencies that are working in this space to provide a fulsome amount of wraparound supports.

[2:16:11] I think that’s where the conversation should go, not where it’s going right now. Speaking directly to the motion, A, I have to agree from my colleagues. This is a little bit punitive in my opinion. I see we’re looking for an overview on the issues identified and the barriers or challenges for individual placement. What I don’t see in that issue is the successes or how we can enhance those successes. I don’t see that being identified here and that. If A had the issues and the successes and how we can mitigate through the issues and enhance the successes, that would be a more fulsome motion for Part A for me.

[2:16:49] The same with Part B as well. The only thing that I might be considering willing to vote for would be C and D because these seem to be information only. But in the end, I’m worried on without the information, really the direction that’s going to lead us. In the end, I do not want to see council intervention for actual placements of individuals. I think that is just way too deep for the operations. And I believe that there’s some parts of this motion, especially on the last one that I saw a committee, that is pointing in that direction. I don’t think we have the right or the ability and to make sure that it’s free from political intervention, we cannot be placing individuals in their housing period.

[2:17:27] That should be done by staff. We are at the governance level. So those would be my points. Another one, and this is the last one. I am really interested on how the council gets access to these apartments. I heard that she’s got access to four. Is that the landlord that gave you the access, the landlord? Councilor, I’m not actually sure that’s relevant to the motion before us. Like the councilor’s actions in the community and going to apartments isn’t really germane to the motion before us.

[2:17:59] Like this is a decision of council, not a review of what a councilor is doing out in the community. So I’d ask you to just focus on the motion. And I could stop there. It’s just the intent that I’m wondering, because the intent does lead to an end. And I’m wondering what the end is. It’s not very clear for me. I have my gut feelings. But with that, because I do see it as A and B has the issues that I’ve raised, C and D, I would like to have more information. I do like how this motion has been re-crafted. I like how it is a little more digestible and readable for me.

[2:18:35] I appreciate that, but at the same time, I don’t have the information that I need. So with that case, it’s no to A, B, C, and D for me on this motion. OK, I have Councillor Hopkins next. Thank you, Your Worship. And I do have maybe a question following the chair’s comments. Is it a procedure to have a notice of motion referred back to the committee? So Councillor, we’re on a motion now.

[2:19:13] The notice of motion was part of the agenda. Leave’s been granted. There’s an active motion on the floor. So all of the tools, like any other motion in Council, can be utilized, including referrals to committees, voting yes, voting down, amending. It’s just like any other motion on the floor before Council. It doesn’t matter how it got here. It’s on the floor now. Well, this is all new to me, and I’m considering all this information. I understand it’s a different motion to what was original. I do have further questions here before I make decisions on A, B, C, and D. And I’m not sure where to go with this.

[2:19:54] So maybe I would like to make a suggestion that it be referred back to CAPS for further consideration. Councillor, you have the floor. So you can ask your questions, or you can make a referral. But like those are the options before you. It’s this motion on the floor now. So you can debate it. You can ask questions about it. You can refer it. But you’d be moving a referral. I’d need to go to a sector to referral takes precedence. So we’d move to that right away.

[2:20:26] Thank you for that guidance. So I do have a number of other questions. I’m trying to be very efficient here, given that it’s 3 o’clock. And so a couple questions I do have on the motion would be, are we just looking— and maybe this is through your worship to staff— are we just looking for reports back on each item? And maybe that’s my first question. Or are we making amendments to these contracts that I am not privy to?

[2:21:04] That’s my question. So I’m going to actually answer that, Councillor. If you read the motion, staff are being directed to, A, provide an overview. That’s part of a report back. B, propose recommendations to— and there’s some criteria there. That would be part of a report back. C is provide an update to the overall success rates. That would be a report back. And D is provide any recommendations for strengthening tenant placement. That would be a report back. Civic administration isn’t really taking any specific actions in this particular motion.

[2:21:39] It would all be information that comes back that then Council could take actions on— unless I’m going to go to civic administration to make sure their interpretation is as mine is. There’s no actions you would take, rather than the actions you need to gather the information for the reports. But you’re not taking any of these actions at this time point in time. Mr. Dickens? Thank you, Your Worship. Yes, this would be a report back as outlined in the motion. The actions we would be taking would be to try to cost out some of the items in B, for example, and try to identify a source of potential funding.

[2:22:14] Should that be a way to address B? Those would be the steps we would take. But we would come back to Council looking for your direction on those. Councillor Hopkins. And just to follow up on that, C&D would just be report backs as well. So given that information, and we’re not making really any decisions here at all, we’re looking for information to come back. I’m going to listen to my colleagues. If not, I think I could support C&D. Maybe having it referred back A and B could be a consideration, but just hearing how the rest of this conversation goes.

[2:22:56] Thanks. All right, I have Deputy Mayor Lewis next. Thank you, Your Worship. So first of all, I will say the reason I was willing to second the notice of motion and get this on the floor is because I do think it was worthy of a discussion. I’m not going to rehash procedure for what happened at committee. I will agree with Council for error whether this is substantively changed from the committee level. I do think that it is where we can. Good to have these discussions at committee.

[2:23:30] What I recognize here, there’s also all 15 of us. And we were all going to participate in this anyway. So I would not support sending it back to committee because then we’re going to take it to committee again. And then the reports would already come to committee. We’re going to refer— if we’ve sent this back to committee, then we would discuss it again there. And then discuss it again here before we even direct the staff to get reports. So as per Councilor Hopkins point, this is asking for information. And I think I’ve heard from most of my colleagues that we’d all like some more information on success rates, which Clause C talks about, on some of the barriers, particularly for me in Clause B.

[2:24:08] We heard Councilor Stevenson reference “Unsecured Front Doors.” There’s language in here that speaks to language and leases with respect to landlord responsibilities. It is not the service provider’s responsibility. It is not city hall’s responsibility. If a front door lock is broken, that’s the landlord’s responsibility to fix. If we are having problems getting in to do an inspection, and we finally get in and find out that the smoke alarms are not working, whether the batteries have been removed or the wires have been cut or whatever, again, that’s part of the landlord’s responsibility to fix.

[2:24:42] And that’s why in Part B, I’m really supportive of looking at strengthening the language and leases with respect to the landlord’s responsibilities, as well as the barriers that individual placements are experiencing. Is there— it references head leases. I don’t know whether staff can consider if agencies are on the lease as well. Does that give them more right to enter a property and do an inspection? I don’t know. But that’s something I’d like staff to take back and come back and tell us. Is there a way to change the lease language so that it’s more difficult for a tenant to refuse an inspection?

[2:25:18] Because I do think when smoke alarms are deliberately disabled, things like that, that is valuable to find a way to get around and make sure that those smoke alarms are functioning, obviously not just for the safety of the tenant in that unit, but in adjacent units as well. I do think in Part A, I appreciate the communication we’ve received from some of our partner agencies already. I think listening to them, hearing what the barriers are, and as I said, I talked to a couple of frontline workers who called me after this committee motion was in the news.

[2:25:55] And they said they felt frustrated and not supported because they’d done their part, they showed up, they knocked, they were refused entry. So I wanna be really clear to those frontline workers. That’s not on you. But as council, if we don’t know that, we don’t know how to strengthen the step moving forward. The thing that I think is the most important clause here though, and I really gotta emphasize this, is clause D, recommendations for strengthening the placement process and success rates, including the service delivery by partner agencies, as well as advocacy considerations to senior levels of government by council.

[2:26:33] Because I think the one thing that we all know, and whether it’s community agencies, and I see Ms. Moss and Ms. Campbell up in the gallery, whether it’s other partners, whether it’s us, there is not enough provincial operating dollars coming to provide the supports at the levels that are needed. So we have to do that advocacy piece. It’s critical. We know as council, we can’t fund all of those operating dollars on property tax base. That’s not what the property tax base was intended for. We can be really good at helping them with some capital costs.

[2:27:07] But we can’t support the day-to-day operations on the property tax base. And if we truly believe that housing is healthcare, healthcare is a provincial responsibility. So that advocacy has to happen to get more operating dollars. If we wanna create more shelter spaces, if we wanna create more highly supportive housing, if we wanna create more permanent, affordable housing, there has to be all three legs at the table, government, the public, and civil society. And right now, the government leg is a little short ‘cause only two of the three levels of government are really participating in this. We’ve got some help from the federal government, and that’s appreciated, but we need more assistance from the provincial government as well.

[2:27:43] And I hope we’re gonna see that hard hub open soon. That would be nice to have those beds up and running. That would be a step in the right direction. But that hard hub alone is not going to do it either. There’s still going to be more work to do. So I asked colleagues to really read the language, the information’s looking for, and then cast your votes accordingly. Well, that was four minutes and 59 seconds, and I even forgot to give you a warning. So I don’t know if you were timing yourself, but that was pretty good. And I was timing myself. Well, that’s, I encourage everyone to do that in case I miss one.

[2:28:14] Councilor Pervil, you’re next. Thank you. Let me start by actually thanking the four organizations that send us the letter, the additional explanations, and all the other organizations who are in this program, same as our staff. This program is helping hundreds of individuals. I’ll tell you right now that there is no, it’s only in London, Ontario. It’s the entire world that any program initiative facing or trying to address homelessness will never be perfect. It will never be perfect.

[2:28:48] I’ll tell you right now, whatever we come up with, and I do believe, and I believe we will come up with some of the initiatives, including the mayor’s letter yesterday, that we are under right track, right direction, to address these issues. Huge challenge, and again, not just in London, Ontario. It’s a worldwide issue. And I want to thank for addressing and introducing other initiatives. We need to, we really need to focus on this. I just don’t want to make sure that this doesn’t come in a negative way. Do we have problems? Yes, there are.

[2:29:20] Will there be? Yes, there will be. The four points that are in front of us, I do take it as a report that’s coming back, improving the current situation, actually giving a voice even to the social agencies and community organizations to officially say their positions, their barriers, their issues. So I don’t see this in any negative perspective. We have a program that’s helping many, many individuals, and we are just trying to get the reports back to see what other opportunities there are, how we can improve it.

[2:29:54] But my main point in this is really, it’s one of the programs that we have, one of the many that we offer that is working, and it’s all these individuals, the hundreds we are talking about, they will be on the street, they will be in the encampments, and we would have many more dangerous situations that we currently have. So thank you for that. I do want to support these four clauses, because I do want to report back and for us to make the best possible decisions to move forward, to maximize our opportunities for us, for the taxpayer, and for the community organizations.

[2:30:30] Thank you all. Other speakers to this, go ahead, Councillor Ploza. Thank you. Looking for you for clarification on part B, it says propose recommendations to amend the existing contracts. Does this mean the existing contracts? They’ve already signed and entered into partnership with, or a template for future contracts based off of this? Well, I’m going to ask her staff that question on how they approach that.

[2:31:01] I assume the existing contracts would maybe have terms for amendments that probably have some conditions to it, but Mr. Dickens, maybe you can help us out with that. Thank you, Your Worship. Through you, these contracts are in place currently. The current term goes until March 31st, 2026. The wording in B is recommendations to amend the existing contracts. So we would take that to mean the ones that are currently in place. Thank you, I appreciate that. I also appreciate we’re an hour and a half into this. I voted to hear it just, I did have some procedural questions coming out of the committee and wanted to make sure that we dealt with it in a timely manner.

[2:31:44] I’ll be at no one, all of this. I believe that if we’re looking at amending potentially existing contracts, these organizations already signed a contract, have staff set up, have their training set up, and are mobilized doing the work that they entered a contract in agreement with the city of London to do and deliver on. In my opinion, it would be a great way to distract from the job at hand of actually housing people in doing this work. Also sending out uncertainty throughout the sector and chaos of once you’ve entered an agreement with the city, is it actually going to stand or we’re going to change terms and expectations partway through?

[2:32:25] As for part D, I’m all for advocacy considerations to senior levels of governments. But I believe we already do that, and we have great seats at the table and representatives in those, and we just got back from AMO, and we have local elected officials at other levels of government we do great work with. So for me, I’m a no. Other speakers, go ahead, Councillor Layman. Thank you. Why didn’t support the amendment?

[2:32:57] I will support this. We’ve been a number of years into this, and I think it’s an appropriate time to look at our experiences. I find that we’re kind of moving back and forth based on anecdotal one-offs. And I think a thorough review of our practices to see what’s working and what can be improved, best practices. I think it will help those that we’re trying to assist. It will help future potential landlords.

[2:33:35] I’m fearful that we might be restricting places that we can help people on. I think there’s nothing wrong with each of these clauses to kind of drill down and see how our progress is being made. Because at the end of the day, it’s been said many times around the horseshoe here. The whole idea is to help as many people as possible, effectively. So let’s find out what’s working and what’s not. Thank you.

[2:34:09] Go ahead, Councillor Trostam. Thank you very much. I’ll still be voting no on every aspect of this. I think the net effect of passing this, whether we like it or not, is going to be the undermined, the stability and the confidence of this program that is ongoing. Which, like any program, can be improved? By just doing this now, I think it’s not useful. Especially when you consider that many pieces of this are coming up for renewal again soon. I don’t see the point of asking for a staff report to evaluate contractual provisions when, by the time the staff report comes back, we’ll probably be looking at the renewal anyway.

[2:34:53] It makes no sense. And we are asking our staff, especially in the housing area, to take on so much. And some of us on caps have some additional problems that we’re going to be putting on the table. But I’m very clearly no on this. I think the worst part of the language was already dealt with. But we don’t need to refer this. We have very, as the letter shows, as the letter from the agency shows, we have very capable, talented, caring, social service agencies that are dealing with these programs.

[2:35:36] And I think the best way to deal with problems is they come up, is to let them work with staff and the tenants and the landlords to deal with them. Everything doesn’t have to emanate from the council table. So please don’t support this. Let’s move on to other things. And by the way, if we are going to support this, then I think it should involve all of our social housing. Because several meetings ago, I raised several serious issues that I had with LMCH. And their administration of habitability standards, we’ve talked about tenant placement.

[2:36:10] If we’re going to open up this question in the middle of this term, it should be across the board so all of the agencies, I got no support for wanting to do that last time, including the inspections. So let’s just vote this down and move on with the more pressing business that we have, knowing that we’ve got people backstoppingness who are very capable to deal with the problems. Thank you. I have myself an excellent list. Then I have Councillor Ramen. So I’ll turn over to the chair to Deputy Mayor Lewis. I will take the chair, go ahead Mayor Morgan.

[2:36:47] Thank you. I’m going to support A, C, and D, and not B. I’ll just provide some reasons why. First off, in A, I provide an overview of any issues identified by partner social agencies that are creating a barrier or a challenge to individual placement success. And then such as, and there’s some examples. That does not mean it’s exclusive to those things. So I know that there are agencies in the audience today. I would strongly encourage you to identify any issues or any barriers that are creating a challenge to you helping people be successful in their housing. That may require additional resources.

[2:37:20] That may be identification of moving towards a model of more highly supportive housing. And so I’m going to support A, because I think we can get some really good feedback from those who are trying to help people be placed or seeing some challenges. And maybe they don’t have the resources of the tools available to them to help them be successful. Maybe the recommendation is that we need additional supports for certain individuals. And that may require additional resources. So people should be aware that there’s probably additional resources that come back related to some of these items. B, not that I disagree with some of the components of B, but I would expect given the amount of time that this would take, given that the fact that the contracts were new in March, amending the existing contracts probably isn’t necessary at this point, but I would anticipate the report back from A would probably inform and then counsel’s decisions on A, would inform future contracts, which may include some of these other items.

[2:38:13] So I’m not sure B is necessary at this time, not because I disagree with the components of B, I just don’t think the existing contracts need to be amended at this point in the cycle. I think we can provide some learnings from A, provide some feedback, and then create the next round of contracts in a slightly different way. C, I’ll say the biggest challenge I have with C is how you define success rates. I think that you’re unlikely to get back a really clear answer on that piece. But I am interested in any trends that are being seen and any sort of challenges that people cycling through programs multiple times, which I think relates back to A, if the providers see that people are struggling to gain traction in these programs, what improvements can we make to the programs, or what maybe referrals can we make to other programs that could be helpful.

[2:38:55] And D, I agree, given A might have some resource components to it, as the deputy mayor said, and as others have said, if we want to strengthen programs like this, it does require additional operating and support from other levels of government in our advocacy on this should be ongoing. And that doesn’t mean we’re going to exclude advocacy on other things, but we know that we’re advocating on a wide spectrum of housing-related issues. We know that the province is interested in housing, and I will commend them again for listening to the work that London has done on hubs and highly supportive housing and modeling a potential wide program that is on the verge of launching across multiple cities and multiple communities in this province.

[2:39:36] And I think that continued partnership with the province on these issues, continuing to share with them where we need supports and where we have things that are working, where things may not be working, is an important ongoing dialogue that can happen. So I’ll support A, B, and D, sorry, A, C, and D. I’m not going to support B at this time. Thank you Mayor Morgan, and I’ll return the chair to you noting you were one minute and 57 seconds shorter than I was. Thank you. I’ll go to Councillor Ramen. Thank you and through you, and I’ll be even shorter than that.

[2:40:09] I was going to say pretty much the same thing. So thank you for saying that. Part B, of course, has the challenges with the timing of the lease. The last thing I want to just add is on D, the recommendations for strengthening placement. I do think our staff are going back to other levels of government as well as they’re engaging staff to staff to provide feedback on the programs, but I do think it would be helpful for us to get some of that engagement as well. So thank you. Okay, any other speakers who haven’t spoken yet? Given I’ve heard some colleagues say they’re not too keen on C and D.

[2:40:46] I wanted to be separate. I think we’ll just do each of these separate. It’s probably the easiest way if people can vote how they want. We’ll do them in order. So we’re going to just do them in the order that they’re on the agenda. I see no other speakers. So we’re going to proceed with voting. So the first thing we’re going to deal with is A. So just make sure you’re looking at the motion and we’ll go with A first and we’ll open that for voting. Wasn’t the vote motion carries 11 to four.

[2:41:34] Okay, and next we’ll go to B and we’ll open that for voting. Wasn’t the vote motion fails three to 12. And next we’ll do C. Mr. Truson, closing the vote.

[2:42:24] Motion carries 11 to four. And finally, we’ll do D. Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to three. Okay, and that dispenses with the components of the motion so that deals with the first motion of which notice is given. But if you like that, great news is we have a second one, which again will require leave to put on the floor.

[2:43:01] This one’s from Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councillor Ferrera. So I’ll go to, I guess Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councillor Ferrera to put the request for leave on the floor. Thank you, Mayor. And I will put request for leave on the floor. That was in the council agenda. Do you need me to read it out or? I don’t need you to read it out. So I’ll put that on the floor. Okay, so this is the request. Deputy Mayor Lewis is seconding the request for leave. Request for leave to put the motion that you see in the agenda on the floor. This is something we move right to a vote on right away. So I want to open that vote. Wasn’t the vote, leave is granted 15 to zero.

[2:43:55] Okay, so leave is granted to put the motion on the floor and now you have to put the motion on the floor exactly as it was in your correspondence. I, Councillor Ferrera, are you gonna do that? Okay, Councillor Ferrera, I’ll turn it over to you. You don’t have to read it out if you don’t want to because you’ve added in the agenda. So it’s on the public record already. But you can move the motion and then you can provide your comments if you’d like. Sure, I will move this motion. And sorry, Deputy Mayor Lewis, you’re willing to second. Okay, go ahead. I won’t read it out. It will be up on the E-Scribe there. But this is just some, I guess fixing of some challenges that we have run into to create more affordable housing.

[2:44:32] We originally signed a municipal contribution agreement with Chelsea Green in ‘23, I believe. And in that time, the letter does speak to this, but in that time there were some challenges that occurred. It’s all in the letter there, but from, I guess, very exhaustive negotiations with myself, with the Deputy Mayor and with Chelsea Green and the Board, we were trying to find a compromise that fit with our requirements, with what we would like for Council, especially, with respect to placing individuals in the supportive housing from our waitlist. And we also wanted to find a middle ground for Chelsea Green to also be able to support housing from their waitlist as well.

[2:45:08] So we did come to a conclusion of the 30 units that Chelsea Green has agreed to build out as affordable. They have agreed with us for 18 to come from our waitlist and 12 to come from their waitlist. So we’re just basically bringing this forward because Chelsea Green right now is kind of in a locked position where they can’t really move forward because they do need to have those hold back funds that we have, the 476,000 in change provided to them so they can continue on with their work. So we thought that this was a very reasonable compromise. It is a compromise, but it’s something that we just recognize when we’re involved in this work challenges do arise and it’s just a matter of how do we pivot and maneuver around and make sure that the project still comes to completion.

[2:45:53] So that’s the motion on the floor. I’m looking for your support so we can get this project going and we can also bring Village Soho to life. Okay, I look for other speakers on this. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, worship, echoing everything council for a said and privileged to work with him on this project and motion to find a middle ground where we could bring something to you. Originally the direction from council us was outlined in our communication was to come back to a future CPSC, but Chelsea Green is actually stalled right now without a release of the funds, the roadmap funds with the exception of the required holdbacks.

[2:46:38] Nothing, no further work is happening there. We’re holding up people from getting into new affordable housing units. That’s why this is coming forward as an emergent motion, a motion of which notice was given so that we could move this forward today. Hopefully all the administrative requirements can be fulfilled this week and we can get the money out the door so that the project can finalize and get residents moving into these units, which is the end goal. Again, it was outlined in the letter, but I think the key here is that well, the city has had to make some additional contributions and in particular with some brownfield soil remediation challenges along the way.

[2:47:15] Even though Chelsea Green has had to reduce the overall number of affordable units in the project because of CMHC financing for the city, we’ve actually gone from five units in the original deal to 12 units now to 18. So even though the total number is lower, the number of folks we’re gonna move off of our wait list is going to be increased. And of course, we all have the frustration about multiple agencies having multiple wait lists and the overlap and duplication.

[2:47:48] We’ve had this conversation with Chelsea Green and they’ve indicated they’re gonna work with our staff to identify where the duplication is. So if they’re taking somebody off of their list from their selection, who’s also on our list, we’re gonna know that that person was housed too. So it may actually be more than 18 people who come off our list because of duplication, maybe with a little luck, it’s all 30 come off of our list ‘cause there happen to be 12 of them who are also on Chelsea Green’s list. But that’s why we’re bringing this forward to you today as a notice of motion so that we can hopefully get this wrapped up and get the funds released this week so the project can be completed and the residents can start moving in.

[2:48:27] All the speakers to this, okay, seeing none. Then it’s moved and seconded on the floor and we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Stevenson. I vote yes. No, thank you for closing the vote.

[2:48:59] Motion carries 14 to zero. Okay, that concludes. Motion is to which notice was given. We’re on to reports. The first report is the 14th report of the Planning and Environment Committee. Turn it over to Sharon Layman to present the report. Thank you, Mayor. Please present the 14th report, Planning and Environment Committee. I have been asked to pull 9, 13, 14 and 15. Okay, would anybody else like any additional items removed from that general list?

[2:49:36] Okay, I don’t see anyone, so I’ll let you make a motion then, Councillor. I’d like to move items one through eight, 10, 11, 12 and 16. Okay, so one through eight, 10, 11, 12 and 16 are on the floor or is there any comments or discussion on that? Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. Just have a quick comment on number five, updating the program guidelines for the Transit Oriented Development Community Improvement Plan.

[2:50:13] I want to thank the committee for supporting the Green Measures, Green Development Measures, disappointed that there wasn’t support for nonprofit organizations. It made me realize that there’s a lot of information that I don’t have as a Councillor on the work that were on the status of nonprofits compared to for profits when it comes to development. And it would be really good maybe in the future to get some reports back in any kind of orientation that Council would receive on what the differences are.

[2:50:49] We know there’s a lot of great work that nonprofits are doing out in the community as well as developers, but it would really, it made me realize I’d like to know a little bit more about the challenges with nonprofits, but thanks the committee for the Green Measures development, thank you. Yeah, Councillor Faire, next. Thanks, Mayor. I also need to make some comments. I wasn’t able to make it to this committee. My apologies on that, but I do want to echo some of the comments that Council Hopkins has made, and I want to specifically speak to the Housing Accelerator Fund top up, I guess, and the surplus allocations that were bringing both to the office residential and transit oriented development incentive programs that we have.

[2:51:35] As the report has noted, and as I’ve had my conversation to staff, both of these are very oversubscribed, so there’s a lot of interest there. And from what I understand, we’re doing really well comparatively speaking to other municipalities. Other municipalities do have incentive programs like this, but they’re not getting as much uptake as we are, so we’re clearly doing something right. So thank you to staff. Thank you for reallocating this money. This is gonna be something that is a really big deal when it comes to reducing the office vacancy that we have in the court. And along our transit corridor lights. So I appreciate that. I appreciate the work that the committee did. I also appreciate the motions that Councilor Frank brought to the committee and the amendments.

[2:52:10] I appreciate supporting some of those motions. As Council Hopkins said, I would have liked to see a bit more, but it is good from what I see. So I just want to say thank you to that. Also, the new framework for the transit oriented development piece on another part of the report. That matrix, I think that’s excellent. I really like how we’re giving the six months for permits. If I can remember correctly, I’ll just say it like this. I appreciate that we’re having some dates in time, set in time to make sure that these developments continue through.

[2:52:46] I think that’s exactly what we need and all those conversations have been going on for a while. I really appreciate that. So I think that’s it for Peck that I’d like to speak to. Anyways, great work by the committee. This is definitely, you’re gonna see these funds, these reallocated funds and the new funds used right away. There is a wait list of people or proponents looking to tap into these funds. So I’m really appreciative of that. That’ll be my comments. Other speakers to these sets of items? Okay, seeing none, we’re gonna open that for voting.

[2:53:51] Opposed and vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, go ahead, Chair. Thank you, Mayor. I would like to put item number nine regarding 1103 and 1111 West Elbourn on the floor. Councillor Hopkins requested this to be pulled. All right, item nine is on the floor. Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, thank you. Your worship, I want to bring to Council’s attention. As the word Councillor, I will not be supporting the referral back to staff. I am supportive of the refusal from staff on this development.

[2:54:27] It is a 12-story as well as three-story townhouses. The reason, I think, is quite clear when you read the recommendation on the intensity and height. And we’ve just had a minister’s approval of height revisions in our city. But this development, the 12-story does not fit into this development. It’s in a low area, it is, has concerns with pedestrian traffic, the intensification 300 units.

[2:55:04] I am very supportive of three-story townhouse. Residents came out and spoke. There’s a number of comments in the recommendation. Fortunately, the time of day, a lot of people were at work, but they are supportive of the townhouse development, not the 12 stories. And our policies do support the three stories. For me, it is also very, very important that we have a discussion at our committees on recommendations that come to committee.

[2:55:38] And for me, it was disappointing. There was no discussion from members why they would not support staff’s recommendation. I also want to make a comment from a resident, and I’ll read it, and this is from my perspective as the ward counselor. And it was a reminder to me that when we are approving developments that are different to our policies, that when we set a concerning precedent, it undermines the trust that residents place in municipal planning processes.

[2:56:16] And I think it is a reminder to me as a ward counselor that I’m going to do my homework, understand there’s always flexibility listening to the public, but also looking at staff’s recommendation and refusal and having that conversation at committee, which was not there. So I will not be supporting the referral going back. OK, any other speakers? Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you. So first colleagues, I’ll remind you that we have an approved a 12-story building.

[2:56:52] The recommendation is to refer back to staff to work with the developer on reduced pipes and density. That was after a communication from the builder saying, they’re willing, rather than appeal, to the OLT to go back and work with staff more. I think when we start getting into conversations about speculation on what might be there after that work, I think we’re actually getting the card ahead of the horse. I think we need to let our staff, Ms. McNeely and her team, do their work with the applicant.

[2:57:31] We hear all the time, oh, zoning— that’s not what it was zoned for. The whole reason we have zoning bylaws and a planning committee and staff who evaluate applications is because zoning designations on property are not carved in stone. Any property owner can come forward at any time and ask for a zoning change. That’s their right in Ontario. So well, the public may not feel that people should be able to do that.

[2:58:05] They would be the first ones to complain if they couldn’t on their own property, quite frankly. And so we have to weigh both of those factors. What we provided here is a direction to staff rather than land at an OLT appeal. I heard speculation a little bit at committee that we should just impose only the townhouses. Again, that wasn’t consistent with the application. It wasn’t consistent with staff’s recommendation. Their recommendation was just refuse it. We didn’t discuss that, though, because we had the opportunity to say, OK, in this case, we’re not going to meet the statutory deadline.

[2:58:40] But the applicant has said they’re willing to go back rather than appeal and do a little more work on this. I will say when we talk about low— we have to counsel a reference that it’s a low-level area. The adjacent property immediately to the south is zoned for eight stories, has a right. That’s how it’s zoned today. So one property lying to the south, eight stories is allowed. So I think we need to be careful about speculating on what might come forward there in a new iteration from the developer.

[2:59:12] It’s not our role to impose, just because we want to see something specific. We’ve got to stick with our official plan, but we also have to stick with the Planning Act, with the PPS, with the assessments from staff on storm water management and all those other things. So I just want to caution, when we talk about refusals, when we’ve got a partner who’s willing to go back to the drawing board, have some more discussions with staff, then that’s probably the path of least resistance for all of us. And it really doesn’t benefit anybody when we land at the OLT with an appeal.

[2:59:47] So I want to thank staff for the work they’ve done so far. I know you’re going to continue to have some conversations, and we’ll see where that leads. When an application comes back, assuming that the applicant is going to make some changes and bring something back. So thank you. And I do encourage colleagues to support the referral. Let both sides have some more time to talk. OK, any other speakers? OK, seeing none, this is the committee’s recommendation on the floor. I’m going to open that for voting. Mr. Stevenson.

[3:00:34] I vote yes. I was in the vote. Motion carries 13 to 2. Go ahead, Chair. Thank you, Mayor. Next, I’d like to book item 13, which is regarding a 767 self-doh road east on the floor. And this request to have this pulled was from a councilor here. OK, that’s on the floor. I don’t know if this is for comment counseling earlier. You just wanted to vote separately. OK, just wanted to vote separately. Any comments then? OK, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Let’s look, Stevenson votes yes.

[3:01:28] Was in the vote. Motion carries 14 to 1. OK, go ahead, Chair. Thank you, Mayor. Next item is item 14 regarding 100 Kellogg Lane, and Deputy Mayor Lewis’s request to pull this. OK, that’s pulled them. Deputy Mayor Lewis, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. So we had an extensive dialogue at committee on this colleagues, and we didn’t have necessarily. It was an item brought forward by the applicants on the added.

[3:02:04] There wasn’t a lot of a chance to have a discussion about it. This is with respect to the path loss study and the acceptable services for emergency communications since Planning Committee. And I voted against the applicants’ request at Planning Committee for the clause in the report that discussed a 99-year agreement with the city, had an opportunity to have a phone conversation with Mr. Mathers, had an opportunity to have a conversation with the applicant, and I’m prepared to move alternate language to clause J, which is a site plan.

[3:02:38] So it doesn’t change the actual by-law. It’s just a matter in site plan. And essentially, it removes the 99-year and speaks to the new language, which would be implement the recommendations from the path loss study to ensure acceptable service levels and establish any required agreements for installation maintenance and access to required telecommunications infrastructure to the satisfaction of the city. And so essentially, we’re removing that 99-year clause and letting staff work with the applicant to come up with an acceptable agreement.

[3:03:14] And so that’s the amendment that I’m looking to move. I look for a seconder for the amendment. Councillor Hopkins willing to second. Great, the amendment is on the floor. Do you want to speak to the amendment now? Yeah, I’ll speak right now. I mean, it’s a fairly small change. It just opens up the door to a little bit more flexibility in the agreement. I think we all know I joked at committee with Mr. Fleming in the gallery that only the good die young, so he and I could renegotiate in 99 years. But that I didn’t expect the same technology to be in effect in 99 years.

[3:03:46] And I think that holds true. So I think it’s quite reasonable to let the applicant and city staff negotiate a shorter term agreement recognizing how fast technology is changing today. I don’t think we need to put a 99-year clause in there. OK, well, 99 years long time, I’ll say at the LHSC, 150. As I said, I was looking forward to what they see after the next 150 years, and I realized that maybe I won’t. So all right, so that’s the first speaker to the amendment. It’s on the floor.

[3:04:18] Move the second any other speakers to the amendment. Go ahead, Councillor Layman. Yeah, I want to thank you, the Deputy Mayor, for finding a way forward to supporting the direction that the investors have at 100 Kellogg. The investment at 100 Kellogg is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. It’s substantially changing to the east side of our— I would even all say the downtown core stretch is almost to that point. Greatly supports the east leg of our higher order transit, and I think it’s going to provide a dynamic reshift in how old industrial lands from 99 years ago are able to be repurposed to address what we’re facing today and London, I hope this is using an example of the potential that can be used in other old industrial lands that are no longer used.

[3:05:23] So thank you. Any other speakers to this one on the amendment? Go ahead, Councillor Ploza. Thank you. I spoke to this one at committee, and I’ll speak to it again. Just looking forward that I guess came through a committee. There was a original motion for those who didn’t join us to remove that wording, staff highlighted that that could cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars if we potentially don’t have access. But we did highlight that 99 years might be a little bit prescriptive and longer.

[3:05:59] I’m fine with it going to staff for them to work out behind the scenes if they still feel that 98 was the appropriate number. I’m fine with that, too. I don’t need to— I would say burn the— really, in the weeds on this one, I’m a little bit disappointed that it was such a transformative project and worth so much money and a huge investment in London that this really is what we’re squabbling about into highlighting the great work that they’re doing of the team and what’s yet to come for that area of the city. So I’ll support it, but a little bit disappointed that this is where we’re at. OK, any other speakers?

[3:06:33] Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I just wanted to say thank you to the deputy mayor for finding a way forward on that. It was a request of the investor who’s put hundreds of millions, as we said, into the city. And it was an ask on their part. So I’m happy to spend the time giving them what they were looking for. Staff made it very clear at planning that it wasn’t needed and that they were able to do what was needed without the direction. So having this amendment, I’m happy to support it and give the comfort to those who needed it and also honor the request of an organization and a company that’s given the city so much.

[3:07:14] OK, that’s all the speakers I have. So I’m going to open the amendment for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0. OK, Chair, you’re willing to move the as amended motion. I will move the as amended motion. I’ll second that. And then we can proceed with the any debate on the as amended motion. Any discussion?

[3:07:48] OK, we can open that for voting. I had my hand up. I’m sorry. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I know we all said thank you very much and all the congratulations and excitement about the big development. I did want to acknowledge we’ve got a couple of residents who live on the street where the 40 story building is going to go. And I just want to acknowledge them for those who’ve reached out. There are a few who have some concerns and reasonable concerns. And I will be having discussions to see what, if anything, we can do to alleviate some of those. I also just had a question through you to staff regarding the traffic.

[3:08:25] It’s not something, again, that I want to bring any downside on this amazing development. And the traffic in that area is a concern. The traffic study was 690 pages long. And I noticed— and it was also done prior to when I got elected. So there wasn’t a section in there that said that there were two intersections where the forecast already said that there were going to be congestion issues. And in the report, it stated that the city wasn’t going to be planning to do anything different and that there was some hope that maybe residents would choose an alternate form of transportation to help alleviate that congestion.

[3:09:03] So my questions regarding that are there’s two. One is, did we also consider the massive development that’s going in at Hiberian Oxford as we did that traffic study? I’m thinking maybe not. And is this something that staff are going to be looking at? Is the impact of all of these new developments that we’ve got coming and potentially bring to council some suggestions on addressing the congestion ahead of time? Or I can be reaching out to staff to do that through another committee?

[3:09:39] I see staff kind of huddling. So councilor, maybe I’ll suggest that given this is a very specific application, and you’ve got a question about some wider traffic concerns related to other developments in the area, perhaps at the committee is probably the most appropriate thing to go. I’ll see if staff have any comments at this time, but that might be an avenue to deal with it from a wider perspective. But go ahead. Thank you. Through your worship, given the cumulative impact and nature of the issue, we would refer it to the master mobility plan process and through a committee that way.

[3:10:16] OK. Thank you very much. I’ll follow up that way. OK. And I’m very excited about the development to just get to manage all the traffic that’s going to draw. Great. Thanks. Any other speakers to this? Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you. And really briefly, I appreciate colleagues’ support on the amendment. I also want us to echo what we’ve heard already from colleagues to the applicants. The work that has been happening, rejuvenating 100-calog has been nothing less than world-class.

[3:10:50] It has been excellent throughout. And while we had this momentary hiccup, glad we could sort it out, because I know that the next phase is going to be just as impactful. We already see— I can tell you from what the tourism I didn’t had on the Hard Rock Hotel has been a phenomenal addition to our community already in terms of overnight stays and heads and beds. This is not just a redevelopment of housing. It is an economic driver area. And whether it’s the factory, whether it is the beer kitchen, all of the wonderful facilities, the new Children’s Museum, which is absolutely spectacular.

[3:11:29] This is a destination now in London, Ontario, for all residents of Southwestern Ontario. And I would say, frankly, for all residents of Ontario. And we get US visitors, too, probably more so now than ever, because their dollar gets a little bit further here than it did a couple of years ago. But we’ll take their money. So to the applicants, I just want to say, I, too, am excited about this. I’m glad we were able to sort it out, because I know you’re going to deliver another spectacular product here. I’ll turn the chair over to the developer. I’m just going to make a few brief comments on this.

[3:12:01] Go ahead, Mayor Morgan. Yeah, I want to just echo what was said and add— I had the opportunity to be at Kellogg’s site multiple times over the years at different openings of different components of the site. I want to say this particular motion before us is really important for the continued development of the site in support of the master vision that they have. I want to also echo what was said at committee, is this is pretty important from an employment perspective. These particularly amendments contained within this allow for a really important employer in all these village car facts to maintain a contiguous office space for their employees.

[3:12:42] It is something that they have received direct from the top to have as one of the components. Without these changes, they’re likely to have had the challenge of looking elsewhere for space. It may or may not have been in the city. So this actually allows for that company to stay and grow right here in the heart of our community and in a way that is going to be really important from a job maintenance and good jobs perspective. The Hard Rock Hotel, as was mentioned, is just part of the site. And it’s hard not to just talk about this piece when you talk about the master plan.

[3:13:17] I had an opportunity to take Minister Fideli through the space a little while back. And we met three people, just in the lobby there, who’d come to the city for the very first time because of that facility. So it is attracting first time visitors to our city who are then experiencing the magic of the factory and then taking the opportunity to explore other parts of our city and the minister was quite impressed, even posted on social media about it, promoting it. So this is a hotel that is one of the top 10 destinations, hotels to see in the world, that have opened this year.

[3:13:53] So it was on an international list. It’s quite impressive. And I think it’s quick and very easy to ignore the gem that we have there. And council support of this motion today allows for those continued good news stories to happen at this site. So I encourage everybody to support it, I think, staff of the work, as well as those investing in this space to continue to invest in a really important part of our city. Thank you, Mayor Morgan. I will return the chair to you. I have no one else on the speakers list. Okay, and I don’t see anyone else either, so we’ll open this for voting. This is the as amended motion.

[3:14:35] Wasn’t the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Bye, Chair. Thank you, Mayor. We’re down to the last item number 15. And this is regarding the Hyde Park BIA expansion project. I have personally pulled this because I’d like to put a referral on the floor. Okay, well, you can put it on the floor and then you can actually make a referral. Okay, okay. I think stopping and doing that, so. Yeah, so this is primarily my ward. And Councilor Robbins Ward, we’ve been working very closely with the BIA.

[3:15:14] And it’s been going through various stages of the expansion process. Last week, there was a letter from the BIA suggesting they wanted to withdraw. And then that letter was rescinded on Friday. Given that, I’d like to have the opportunity to ask the Business Improvement Association what the thought process was behind that, gauge their support.

[3:15:48] Their support, I believe, is crucial to this project. And if it’s not there, I wanna know why and make sure. So when I’m referring this back to PAC to have an opportunity to have the BIA appear before PAC. And I don’t believe this is, I don’t wanna see this rushed. So I will look to have this done in Q1 of 2026. Okay, is there a seconder for that referral?

[3:16:23] Seeing Councilor Cuddy willing to second it. We’re gonna get the language up on the screen. But if you want the referrals down the floor, you can make comments there. I know you’ve kind of made some comments for referral, but now that it’s on the floor, you can make comments to the referral. If you’d like, Chair, or I can look for a speaker’s list. Yeah, you know, I wanna proceed cautiously. I think PAC did as well the discussion we had it there. While we were willing to go to the next step, we did express concern over the amount of feedback we got back. Crucial to that next process for me personally, and I know with Councilor Raman as well, was to reach out to the prospective members up as well as the city with the opportunity to vote yay or nay.

[3:17:08] My concern, there is concern with the labor actions that kind of post that might be impaired in some way. So it would help if we push this farther down into 2026. Okay, other speakers to this? Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll just take a moment to first of all, to Councilor Layman and Raman, apologize. If I’ve caused any extra headaches, I reached out to the BIA on the weekend, the Executive Director, and asked what was happening with the letter to withdraw.

[3:17:48] I understand since then there’s been some communications or miscommunications between board members and the ED. So I can support more time. I do want the board to be fully informed and on board, whatever that direction is going to be. I do think that we need to also take a careful look at what we’re asking for here, and that we’re respecting the terms that are laid out in the Municipal Act for Business Improvement Association, Formations and Expansions.

[3:18:21] I get a little concerned when we start to try and exceed or go beyond what the intent of the act is. We’ve seen in other cases that some of those actions by municipalities actually cause the province to take away our ability to do anything more. We’ve seen that in Bill 17 with the Green Development Standards, for example. So I think we want to be cautious about overreaching beyond the terms of the act. And I think with that said, again, to the two Councillors who have this in the area, my apologies for causing any extra phone calls and headaches that you might have had over the weekend talking to different board members, as I was trying to figure out what was going on too, but I think to me, the idea of taking more time to get it right makes a lot of sense.

[3:19:14] Any other speakers to this referral? Go ahead, Councillor McAllister. Thank you and through the chair. And I appreciate the work that Councillor Lehman and Councillor ramen have done with this. Just for my own clarity, ‘cause I know a few of us have BIA’s. Just as the Deputy Mayor said to alleviate confusion, is it possible when these requests come through to have a letter from the board? ‘Cause I think some of my confusion was the direction coming from the Executive Director, the Board directly. I don’t know if it’s possible to have the vote actually recorded and then that provided as part of the letter, but just so we have an understanding of the Board and the discussion that actually occurred, just to alleviate any confusion.

[3:19:58] Yeah, I think that’s probably a follow-up for later. Like it’s kind of a little bit out of scope with this particular motion. I think it’s a good suggestion, but maybe you can take that offline with staff on whether that’s something we can do or if it’s necessary to break through committee, but right now we’re on the referral of this back. It could be something discussed as part of the referral as well. So I think we’ll just stick with the referral as well. Appreciate the comments and suggestions. Anybody else on the referral? Go ahead, Councillor ramen. Thank you and through you. So I’m supportive of the referral.

[3:20:30] Thank you to Councillor Lehman and to Councillor Cuddy for putting this on the floor, as well as the timeline for the referral. I think that this will give us a chance, the BIA, sorry, a chance to be able to have further discussion. The letter that came from the BIA was unanimously supported at the BIA, so that was an important piece of the direction. And I think that based on some of the conversations that happened over the weekend, none of them with me, that conversation then went in a different direction since that time.

[3:21:07] I think it’s led to some confusion for us as a council as to what the firm direction is that was supported by the BIA membership, sorry, Board of Directors as to how to proceed. So having more time to address those concerns, I think is imperative. The other component of this, I think, again, is just recalibrating. There’s a number of things on the BIA’s work plan as well that need to be considered. And so being mindful of the workload as well, wanting to make sure that we have time for a discussion to ensure that the workload is prioritized.

[3:21:42] So thank you for that. Any other speakers? Okay, the referrals on the floor. No other speakers, we’re gonna open that for voting. Wasn’t the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero, noting that Councilor Van Mirberg has left the meeting. Thank you Mayor. That concludes the 14th report back. Okay, it’s been three hours and five minutes.

[3:22:15] I wonder if I could entertain someone making a motion for a 10 or 15 minute break, whatever you think. 10, anyone want to make a motion? No, no, all right, tell us. All right, no is making a motion. Go ahead, Councilor Farrah. Sorry Mayor, I couldn’t hear you over here. Is that a motion for a break? No, I’m asking if anybody wanted to. It’s been three hours and we have staff here. All over the motion for a 10 minute break. Okay, 10 minutes, seconded by, seconded by McAllister, all right, we’re gonna do it in the system, okay?

[3:22:55] So this will be a vote for a 10 minute break. I want to open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries nine to five. All right, but we’ll go to. I had the leftover stuff from the reception brought down if people need a small bite to eat.

[3:37:09] Okay, please be seated. Okay, we just concluded the planning in the Environment Committee report. We’re on to the SPPC report. I will turn it over to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. I am pleased to put the 11th report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on the floor. I have not had any requests to have items pulled for a separate vote. So unless there are any now, I will move all items. Anybody like anything separate from the SPPC report?

[3:37:45] Seeing none, I’ll move the entire report. Okay, the entire report’s on the floor, any discussion? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero.

[3:38:20] Great, thank you for that. We’ll go to the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee. We’ll turn it over to Chair Robin. Thank you and through you, I would like to put items one, two, and four and five as I’ve not had requests to pull any of those items forward to the committee, or sorry, to Council for consideration this time. Okay, so that’s one, two, four, and five altogether. Does anybody have any issues with that? No, okay, Councilor Robbins, moving that.

[3:38:57] Any discussion on one, two, four, or five? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you, I’ll look to put item three, two point one, the design contract price increase for Wellington Gateway Transit and municipal infrastructure improvements forward to Council for discussion.

[3:39:33] Okay, that’s on the floor, any discussion on that? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Councilor Stevenson votes no. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 13 to one. Thank you, that concludes my report. Okay, great, we’re on to the 13th report of the Community and Protective Services Committee. Turn it over to Councilor Ferreira.

[3:40:06] Thank you, Mayor. I am pleased to report the 13th report of the Community and Protective Services Committee. I have some pull requests, Councilor Van Mirberg and old one, but I believe is no longer in chambers, okay? I still have pull requests for Councilor Stevenson. It’s item three, item four, and item five from the report. So I’d be prepared to move a motion. Items one, two, six, three, nine. Okay, one, two, and six, three, nine, is everybody okay with that?

[3:40:40] Are you just looking to comment or do you want something separate? Yeah, well, get to comments in one. So you’re willing to put the, looks like you can put that on the floor. One, two, and six, three, nine. Okay, that’s on the floor by the chair. Now look for comments on those items. Councilor Trozell. Thank you very much through the chair. I’d like to not pull for an amendment or a vote, but just sort of make a few comments about the Aziz Sarnia Western Road. This has been a long process.

[3:41:12] This came to us in our first year of City Council. And I think we had the first, not the predecessor of the group that’s here today from USC, but I think your predecessor’s predecessor was here talking to us about that a couple of years ago. And here we are two years later and we’re finally making some good progress, some very needed progress. There are some very, very dangerous situations at the center section. And first and foremost and the most important thing is that those dangerous situations be fixed.

[3:41:48] And the plan is that they are going to be fixed. And I’m very pleased about that. Particularly the extension of the bike lanes and the remedy in of the very, very dangerous situation on Philippa Z’s road, not to mention some of the other improvements. Having said that, I do want to express my concern somewhat to satisfaction with the way in which the issue of the pedestrian scramble was dealt with. I’m not pulling that for a separate vote. I’m very happy to allow this to proceed as it is.

[3:42:23] But as we discussed at the committee, the question of what is the appropriate criteria? What are some of the guidelines? And when is and when is not a scramble appropriate, is something that needs to come back to CAPS committee at some point. I don’t think it’s necessary for me to make that as a motion because there was a general agreement at the committee that that is something that would happen. I just want to understood that this does not constitute a decided matter of council in terms of never talking about the scramble again. This term, I do intend to bring it back for discussion.

[3:42:57] And what I’ll be looking for is one of the criteria for a good scramble. And with that, I’m going to be supporting the motion. I really want to thank USC for your diligent participation in this process over the years. I want to say over the years because this is not the first time I’ve been here. And your letters have always been very, very helpful. They’re much appreciated. And I hope this was a great council meeting for you to sit through because I know you just came for this and here you are again. So I want to acknowledge our friends from campus.

[3:43:31] So thank you very much. And I will be supporting this and I can call it. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you, Councilor, is there any other comments on all of the items before us? Corinne, our Councilor Raman, sorry. Thank you, through you. I had a question regarding, I guess it’s not a question. It’s more of a comment regarding eight, 3.1, sorry. It’s the fifth report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee. There are some items in there that are listed as be requested and I’m not sure a lot of them are to civic administration.

[3:44:08] And I’m just wanting clarification on what that means if we receive it. Does it mean that we are approving those requests to get the information back from civic administration? I’m just looking for clarification on that. Go ahead. I was going ahead. Someone made eye contact. And then they turned away when I said go ahead. The city manager has it.

[3:44:39] You have to jump in when no one jumps in ‘cause you’re the leader, so. Thank you, worship through you. And I may phone a friend by asking the clerk to ask to connect in on this one. I think when they come forward as recommendations, I think if Council wants to post specific recommendations from that agenda, or sorry, from those minutes and direct us to take action on them or report back, we would do that. But at this point in time, I believe my understanding is it’s being received as a report for information only. So unless there’s specific direction, we receive it that way as well.

[3:45:17] We’re gonna do the clerk confirming thing that you suggested, so. So I’m gonna have the clerk respond to this because there are recommendations in this that do make decisions.

[3:46:12] And so the report, when you look at the actual motion, if you click on eight, you will see like an actual series of actions that are that come from the committee’s report. And we can separate any one of those and change them, amend them, do some, not do others. But there are decisions being made as part of these reports. I’ll let the clerk confirm that. Thank you, Your Worship. That’s correct. Committee voted on a series of actions with respect to the environmental stewardship and action community advisory committee.

[3:46:49] And a number of those items are specific action items. It was passed five to zero, I believe. Yes, go ahead. Thank you and through you. So there are requests to civic administration for particular actions, specifically reports. I wanna know by accepting what’s here, ‘cause I didn’t pull it, ‘cause I wanted, and that’s why I should have actually pulled it to see clarity, I’m sorry about that.

[3:47:22] If I’m agreeing to direct civic administration, because it just says receive. So I just need clarity because I’m not comfortable without understanding the work plan and the civic administration on just approving all of these items writ large, until I understand the scope of the work that’s required here, and why they are coming in this direction, because my understanding of how our working groups work, and how we’d like them to work going forward, is that the direction of the work comes from the committee instead of the opposite way, which it’s now coming in.

[3:48:06] So I just want clarification on that. So I wanna help try to provide some clarity to the Council Romans raising. If you actually click on the 13th report of the Community Protective Services Committee, item eight, 3.1, the fifth report, you will see a motion that says that the following actions be taken with respect to the fifth report, and then there’s A through F, and then F has several supplements.

[3:48:53] Actually, and then there’s a G clause that has just received some things. So those are all actions being taken. For example, civic administration be requested to undertake a study to identify costs. Civic administration, if we approve this, would go and do that the way that it’s worded in the motion right now. So I see our staff looking to maybe comment, and then I’m gonna go to the clerks, and we may have to pull this out separate. We’re gonna work on doing that anyways, but I’ll go to civic administration.

[3:49:31] Thank you, Worship. I just get some information from our very helpful staff here. It’s my understanding that this report, from the fifth report of the environmental stewardship and action community advisory committee, was received at the CAHPS committee, was directed as is identified in the agenda. I am not aware of the breadth of the discussion at the committee level, but I will say to you that this is a significant amount of work that’s being requested, and a number of recommendations for civic administration to do a fair number of pieces of work.

[3:50:07] There are no timelines identified towards that, but clearly we would need to take this back if council decides to move this forward and look at the reality of what this would mean in terms of getting this information back, but it is a sizable amount of information and work to do. The colleagues want this separated. Yeah, okay, we’re gonna separate this out. Yeah, go ahead, Councilor Rowan.

[3:50:39] Thank you, Through you. So I don’t know that we have the time to actually parse out each individual piece and then go through debate and discussion on each individual piece of what is in here that is under civic administration be requested. There’s also some components of this, which I’m not clear on, for instance, a request to contact committee members to schedule informal get-togethers in 2025, if there’s any quorum issues or anything else, that matter. I’m wondering if we find another way forward so that— Perfect, what I’m gonna do is stop you now.

[3:51:13] I’m gonna pull this separate. We will have this as a separate item. If colleagues would like to refer it back to the committee and ask them, parse it out and go through it in more detail, we could do that, but we’ll do that at the time. Now that we’ve pulled it out, I wanna kind of just stick to the motion of consent that is before us, which now does not include this item. And then when we get to this item, I think you can make some super thoughtful comments like you were on your way to doing. So that means this item is not in there, so eight is not in the series of motions that the chair is putting forward.

[3:51:48] It’ll be excluded like the others, so we’ve just got the components that the chair was putting on the floor. Is there any discussion on those components? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Yeah.

[3:52:19] Did have a pull request for four, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you for that. Yes, so the motion is that the 13th report of the committee protective services be approved with the exception of items three, four, five, and eight. Thanks, Mayor, sorry. Okay. Closing the vote, motion carries 14-0.

[3:52:53] Okay, so those items passed. I’ll now look to you chair to put the next item on the floor. Thank you, Mayor. The next item on the floor is item three. That’s 2.2 of the committee report, London’s newcomer strategy, choose London, innovative, sorry, innovative, vibrant and global 2024, 2028, and London newcomer survey by London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership. Okay, so that’s on the floor, and it is an item to be received, so I look for any speakers to this.

[3:53:30] Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 13-1. Go ahead, chair. Thank you, Mayor. So the next would be item four. That’s 2.5 of the committee report, project and funding agreement, construction or renovation for licensed childcare in early years, programs as it relates to bill number 341.

[3:54:05] I’ll put that on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor. I look for any speakers to this. Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you. I just have a couple of questions through you to staff. There’s two reserve funds identified as the source of financing, and I’m wondering what the balances are in those funds. Go ahead, Ms. Purple. Thank you, through the chair. So the early childhood development reserve fund has a balance of approximately just a little more than $5.2 million.

[3:54:38] The other item that the council referred to is not a reserve fund. It is actually the annual operating budget that was approved through the multi-year budget. It’s approximately $1.6 million, used to support the addition of new childcare spaces. So part of that’s already been committed so far this year. From an operating perspective, they’ve got about six to 700,000 that’s already been committed to date. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you.

[3:55:10] And the reserve fund of $5 million, from what I can see, it was part of the previous multi-year budget. And I just wondered if the use of this is consistent with what was originally proposed in that multi-year budget. Was capital funding for the new centers, the original intent? Go ahead. Thank you through your worship. The spending of these funds is in accordance with the by-law that has governs that reserve fund as approved by council.

[3:55:45] Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. But in that multi-year budget, 2019 to 2023, there was 1.1 million a year set aside. And there was, you know, there’s a still bit of a blurb about what was intended to be done with that funding and the strategic plan. And I’m just wondering, is this use of it the way it was originally proposed and funded? I think the difference in the question is, the Councillor’s asking question about the original allocation of the funds in the multi-year budget, although it’s in a reserve fund that has parameters on how the reserve fund can be spent.

[3:56:29] Now, I guess is there a difference between those two things? Through your worship. So the reserve fund is governed by the by-law. That was not set up through the multi-year budget. That has contributed, that fund is governed specifically through the use and all the balances under the approved reserve fund by-law that governs that fund. The annual operating dollars that were set aside are municipal dollars that are operating on an annual basis for which the budget was set to fund the expansion of new childcare spaces.

[3:57:04] So funding from the reserve fund is being done in accordance with the by-law that governs the reserve fund and the funding from the municipal budget is being spent in accordance with the amount that the business case had approved and in accordance with the terms of that business case to set up for new spaces. So hopefully that clarifies the two separate pieces. And so one will continue and is set every single year, which is the operating. The reserve fund balance carries over and that reserve fund by-law covers, how that use is done. Councilor Stevenson.

[3:57:36] Okay, yeah, thank you. I think that does help. Then I guess my question is, where did the five million in the reserve fund originate? Has it just been there for a really long time or when did that money come in? And then the other question is there, like I saw there is a strategic plan and everything for childcare. And in that previous year, multi-year budget, there was talk of the municipality having to put 20% towards the capital funding. I guess I have two questions. Where did the five million dollars come from?

[3:58:10] And the other one is, was this part of the strategic plan to do this capital funding of daycare centers? ‘Cause I know we have a strategic plan that goes to 2028. And is this project that we’re being asked to fund, was that part of that strategic plan? Mr. Dickens. Through you, Chair, I don’t have the detailed breakdown of where those funds came from to the reserve fund handy.

[3:58:45] I believe a lot of it was from ministry funding that was able to be reallocated into a reserve for future development. As far as the strategic plan goes, yes, this directly aligns with our goals to develop sustainable childcare and expand childcare spaces. It also allows us to adequately address unmet needs in terms of service delivery across an ever-changing platform and regulation. So as we look at unmet needs for different operators or specific childcare populations, that is what this reserve fund is intended to.

[3:59:26] And as council has approved through the MYB and through our bylaws, we are not straying from those approvals. Councilor. Okay, thank you for that. If it was in the report, I apologize, I didn’t see it, but is there a maximum that’s allowed per applicant? Dr. Dickens.

[4:00:10] Thank you, Chair, through you. I’ll start this response. And I have Ms. Glover, our Director of Child Care and Early Years on the call as well on Zoom. If we were to apply this funding or when we apply this funding, we would be looking to evaluate any potential projects against the local criteria, our expansion goals, as well as the proximity to licensing if an organization is not already a licensed provider and the likelihood that projects could be developed and completed on time.

[4:00:45] So to do that, we would also look at the amount of funding that’s being requested to ensure that we don’t exacerbate or empty the reserve fund, given our requirements to maintain a balance in that reserve fund and also not stray outside of our expansion growth commitments that we’ve made elsewhere. So we don’t have a set maximum, but we do anticipate that projects are being evaluated based on other access to capital through private lending or through other sources. And that should we need to contribute, it would be more of a last resort and we would do so based on a number of criteria.

[4:01:26] Councillor. Thank you for that. I think my last question is, will there be any report back to council at any point in terms of who got the money and how much and the success rate of what that funding created? Mr. Dickens. Through you, you worship. Typically, we don’t report back on what success rates are. If we’re entering into a contract and we move into the administrative function of managing that contract.

[4:02:04] If it’s for a capital build, we work through the province on ensuring that capital build gets licensed and those approvals are in place and the childcare space is open on time. Should council wish to see a report back on this particular program? We would seek your direction to do so. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. So there’ll be no report back even as to who and how much was given to each person out of that $5 million.

[4:02:41] Mr. Dickens. Through you, you worship. We’re seeking council direction to have the authority to enter into these funding agreements. If council would like a report back on these various agreements, then we would seek council direction to do that. Mr. Stevenson, you’re muted. Thank you. Speaking for myself, I would want a report back at some point showing where the $5 million was allocated. I’m not gonna move a motion right now if one of my colleagues feels the same way, that would be great.

[4:03:21] Otherwise, I would just be voting no. Okay, any other speakers to this? Seeing none, then we’re gonna open this for voting. Councillor Stevenson votes no. Opposed in the vote.

[4:03:54] Motion carries 13 to one. Go ahead, Chair. Thank you, Mayor. I believe that leaves us with the last item that, or second last item that was pulled. So that leaves me to put just a second. Item five, 2.6. Item five, 2.6. And that is the interim housing assistance program. I have agreement 2025, 2027 as it relates to bill number 342. Okay, that’s on the floor.

[4:04:26] I look for any speakers. Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you, I have an amendment that I circulated. It’s just to get at the executed contract to come back, similarly to what we did with the federal funding in the spring. I can read it out. Yeah, if it wasn’t on the public agenda, which I don’t think it was, I know you circulated it, but yeah, read it out so the public knows what it is. That the motion be amended to include a new part that reads as follow C. The civic administration be directed to bring forward to a future meeting of the community and protective services committee, the executed 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, I have.

[4:05:16] Okay, I’ll look for a seconder for that. Okay, I don’t see a seconder. So that motion won’t land on the floor. So yeah, there’s no motion without a seconder, Councillor. Okay, that’s fine. Okay, so this is on the floor. Any other speakers to this? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open this for voting. Councillor Stevenson votes no.

[4:05:57] Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to one. Councillor Ferriero, go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. I believe this is the last one that was pulled. This is item eight of the Council agenda 3.1 of the report, fifth report of the environmental stewardship and action community advisory committee. I’ll put that on the floor. Okay, so this is on the floor. I will look for speakers on this one. This is the one that we pulled from the consent before. Go ahead, Councillor Ramen. Thank you and through you. So I’m looking for guidance perhaps from the clerk on how to split this, but basically the way I am reading this is that everything up until F seems to be things that were at the committee for a discussion that are either going back to the committee or something of that nature.

[4:06:47] F then speaks to things that I believe are requesting direction and therefore I’m, and the other thing that I’m trying to assess at this point is in my opinion, everything in F relates to planning and environment committee and this was heard at CAPS. So I’m trying to understand where PEC had a chance to weigh in on this item or these reports. So I’m not sure what to do at this point because I’m either happy to refer back to PEC or to deal with those items right now and receive it but not take no action.

[4:07:28] Yeah, so there’s lots of options available. I would say we can refer to any committee and you’re right, the content of F certainly would align with just a quick consultation with the clerk with the planning committee’s terms of reference. The planning committee could decide what to do on this at that point, they could accept some, they could change some, they could decide to take no action on some. You could also make that decision now and take no action on them at this point and just receive them, so there’s a couple of options that you’re disposal, but there’s nothing for including you from referring just F out of this to another committee.

[4:08:10] I think I’d like to hear from my colleagues before. I move on that. Okay, well, what I would just caution you is if a colleague is supportive of doing that, you can’t really hear your colleagues and get back on the speaker’s list of councils. So if you’re gonna give up the chair, you’re basically saying, I wanna hear from colleagues and then someone perhaps take an action on this ‘cause you’d be giving up your ability to take some action at this time. I’m counting on the fact I’ll be able to speak on an amendment. Okay, all right, so any other speakers on this then? Go ahead, Councillor Ferreira. Thank you, Mayor.

[4:08:43] For F, I can see where the councilor’s coming from. If she’s looking for a seconder to refer it to F, I guess actually— - You’re the mover. Councillor sat down, so— She’s looking for a mover now, so— Like, I do believe that some of these items are important to discuss. I was just going through it and I do remember looking at the items here. If it needs to go to PEC, I would move it to refer to PEC for more full-sum discussion. I’m good with that, so I’ll move that. Okay. Unless the point of order, Councillor, my order goes first.

[4:09:16] The point of order is if these items are within the proper jurisdictional purview of the terms of reference of this committee, then this committee acted appropriately and it was sent to the right committee of jurisdiction and caps accepted this and voted for it. So I guess my question, what my inquiry, what my point is, is this within the scope of this advisory committee, because if it is, I don’t think we need to refer it to another committee because we’re the jurisdictional committee. So, Councillor Froomev, so it’s a point of order.

[4:09:51] So from an order perspective, this, even though it came through committee, is now in the hands of council as a body and council as a body can choose what action to take on this, including referring to other committees for discussion. If even referring to committees that don’t have that scope of mandate, you just notwithstanding the procedure by-law. In this case, this is a committee that does report through the caps committee. There’s nothing stopping council from referring components of it to another committee that may have a mandate that may include these items.

[4:10:25] And so there’s, in my opinion, nothing out of order with the councilor’s proposed motion and I’m going to proceed looking for a seconder. But that doesn’t also mean that there was anything wrong with the way it came through in the first place. But once it becomes the hands of this decision-making body, we have the ability to take an action such as the councilor’s proposing. I don’t believe that I’ve started my speaking on this here. Yeah, and I don’t even have a seconder yet for the motion ‘cause you did a point of order. Point of order’s done with. Councilor McAllister’s willing to second the referral. The referral’s on the floor. I’m gonna see if Councillor Froome wants to say anything at this time, you don’t have to, but you can.

[4:10:59] Go ahead, Councillor Froomev. Thank you, Mayor. I do think there’s some important stuff here. There does look like an overlap between the two committees’ responsibilities. The reason that I would look to see it go to PEC is because I do see some items in here that may be in line with PEC. I don’t know fully how they would be in line ‘cause I can’t remember the PEC’s, I guess, in terms of reference. But considering that I do see some items there, I do think it’s appropriate. At the same time, it was appropriate coming to CAPS ‘cause I do see some areas that CAPS overlaps on this as well.

[4:11:33] I think this is an important motion because if you look really at with our expansion of the— Okay, Councillor, the motion is a referral now. So really important motion if you’re talking about the content of the referral. That’s not really within scope. What’s in scope right now is, should we refer this to the committee you’re suggesting? So if you keep your comments tight to that, happy to let you continue. All right, yes, I think we should. There’s some important items here. We are on the verge of doing some new things when it comes to the urban growth boundary. So as Councillors read through this, I would believe that you would see some of the important aspects of it as well.

[4:12:09] So it does merit some more discussion, I think, and decision. Other speakers to this referral? Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you. So first your worship through you just to civic administration. When is our, remind me if you can, our deadline for final decisions on urban growth boundary changes? Okay, I’m gonna deem that relevant to the referral because of the content piece and that information may be relevant to the place of referral and the timeline of referral.

[4:12:46] So Mr. Mathers, go ahead. Through your worship, it’s Q4 2025. So that’s before December 31st of this year. Okay, thank you. That’s important to me because it’s important as to the reason why I’m not supportive of the referral. My preferred course of action here is to receive and take no action. And if it goes to Planning and Environment Committee, that’s the motion I’ll be making there. As Ms. Dater’s beer indicated, there’s a considerable amount of work involved in these requests for study.

[4:13:24] And I’m not prepared to support them. When we start looking at, you know, and again, the reason why I can’t even support the referral, Fi starts talking about doing this before the 2028 development charges study. And I just would ask through you to staff, Mr. Mathers or Ms. Barbone, I’m not sure which one. I know you both have a hand in the development charges background study. When do we have to make a decision on that? Okay, timing on that decision, go ahead.

[4:14:00] Thank you through the chair. So we need to have a new development charge by-law that is effective Jan 1, 2028. So the master plans are currently underway right now. When those are all complete, which will be close to the end of the year, next year will be the development of the background study itself, which will inform the by-law that will come forward early in 2027 to start the public discussion about that. So we’re starting to run into the timelines that are coming up quickly. Yeah, so with respect to those timelines, with respect to a number of things that we’ve seen both provincially and in our own choices around development charges.

[4:14:43] And this is particularly why I can’t support Fi. You know, we already have significant limits on what we can impose development charges for. And every development charge we impose is also increasing the cost of housing to spend time asking for a study on mitigating wildlife vehicle collisions is to me something that the referral is going to put us past some of the deadlines, which we need to meet. So for that reason, that’s why Fi is out. As far as FII and FII, you know, FII is looking for information for the past 25 years.

[4:15:24] With respect to referring this to a committee, I don’t frankly see the relevance of asking our staff for 25 years’ worth of land parcel history on decisions we’re making moving forward. Okay, so I’m not going to support the referral. If the referral passes, I won’t be supporting it a peck. If the referral doesn’t pass, then I’m going to look to move to receive and take no action. Okay, on the referral, any other speakers? Go ahead, Councilor Trossa. I was originally through the chair, not keen on the referral because I thought that this was properly brought to a committee on our agenda.

[4:16:04] And it was properly dealt with in a committee. What’s came, what’s come out today, thanks to some of the things that have been said, including Councilor Ferra, is that there’s overlapping jurisdiction here, which is something that we inevitably are going to have. And the best way to deal with this is not say, oh, this is complicated. This is asking for a lot of work. Let’s have the peck look at it. Now, a peck, of course, as an independent committee can do what they want with this. They can look at this and make the same motion. You may do that.

[4:16:37] In which case, it will come back to Council. In which case, maybe that will dispose of it. Maybe we’ll be going around in circles. I don’t know. So it goes from the advisory committee to the committee of jurisdiction to Council, to peck, back to Council. So yeah, that’s okay if that’s what our process has to be. But I want to stress one thing here. We’ve asked this advisory committee to roll up their sleeves and do some hard work. Some hard work that we don’t always have time to do a committee.

[4:17:11] And they’ve done that. And I want to commend them for that. And I want to make sure that their work is not just sort of discarded because it’s too complicated. So I’m going to support the referral. At this point, I’m going to stand with my committee chair. And I just think that there are some really important points, environmental points that are raised. And by the way, this is the environmental advisory committee. Sure, the referral counselor. So I want to go ahead and support the referral at this time. Thank you.

[4:17:44] Okay, any other speak? Tight to the referral. I’ll go to Councillor Lehman and then Councillor Hopkins. It’s precisely for that reason that I will not be supporting the referral. I see it will be just cycled back here. I agree with everything. Deputy Mayor Lewis said the staff is under tremendous pressure on the number of friends right now. If the advisory committee wants to take action of these things, I suggest they dig in and do some more work and they can present their findings to the committee or to staff on the referral counselor. So, okay, that is why I’m not supporting the referral.

[4:18:20] I’m cutting people off ‘cause we’re kind of debating the merits of these components. The referral means there’s a suggestion to go somewhere and have these discussions and some things are linked to the referral, kind of to keep it tight. But we’re not debating the merits of these components. There’s a motion to refer. So Councillor Hopkins, you’re next. On the motion to refer, if you are not supporting the referral, I would suggest you take out IEP, which would be to receive the working groups report. IV, F, IV. Yeah, I don’t think anybody has an objection.

[4:19:02] Like we refer to all of F, but IV is really just working group report be received. So, is there any, I just look for consensus. Can we pull that piece out and still receive that? Okay, I see no objections to that. It’s a motion council, by anonymity, that piece will be just removed and we can still pass just a point of order, your worship. Clause G actually references receiving other clauses. So, if F, IV is specific to just clause F, I’m trying, like we’ve got to be received in two clauses in a row here.

[4:19:44] So, can we please get some clarity? ‘Cause I have no problem receiving A through E. So, there’s a working group and then there’s the advisory committee. So, the advisory committee accepted the report of the working group. So, that’s what that piece is. That’s why there’s a little bit of repetition there. The other pieces are receiving, G is receiving the work of the advisory committee. F, IV is receiving the work of the working group. So, that’s why it’s different, perfect. Okay, so we’re gonna pull that out because no problem receiving the work of the working group recognizing that.

[4:20:19] The other pieces of I, I think, are on the floor for referral, or sorry, F. So, F, I, F, I, F, I, I, I. Those are the components that are being listed. That’s fine. Okay, any others on the referring of those pieces? Okay, let’s open the referral for voting. Closing the vote, motion fails, seven to seven.

[4:21:05] Okay, so those pieces are not referred. So, they’re still part of the whole thing that’s on the floor. Councillor Frara, you made a referral. Okay, Councillor Frara, you moved right to referral. So, you can still speak if you want. You don’t have to do that right now, but you moved right to the referral. So, you can still speak on the main motion if you like. Thanks, Mayor. So, yeah, I will speak to the merits of F, I guess. I’ll focus in on that. You know, we’re expanding our urban growth boundary, and there is natural heritage corridors that are required for that because we would be potentially isolating different pockets of the environment with the infrastructure that we’re gonna be eventually building there.

[4:21:53] So, this is something that we’re trying to do beforehand to make sure that we do have those corridors open so we can have that, I guess, permeability for movement of wildlife within those new areas that are gonna be captured in this. So, in my opinion, this is a perfect time to be doing this, I understand it’s tight, but the committee or the working group have done most of the work on this. If you look at the report, they’ve identified the areas of where it would work the most, and it would be a very low amount of work per staff because the bulk of the work has already been done.

[4:22:27] And this is just to ensure that we do have those natural heritage corridors opened up to ensure that we do have wildlife able to move around. So, we don’t isolate that into little pockets of the environment, and then in that case, when you have that isolation of the wildlife that live in the area, you know, they are kind of set up to die. So, this is something that we’re trying to do to mitigate that, and we’re trying to make sure that those paths are connected. Doing this work right now before we actually open that up is very important. I think this is the perfect time to do that. So, I would say for those who don’t support it, please support it knowing that.

[4:22:59] And the report does have the bulk of the information done already there. So, there wouldn’t be that much work for staff to do because most of it’s already done. That would be for pretty much the whole part. So, it’s an important motion. It’s definitely something that we should be doing, and considering that we’re on the verge of actually doing this work with the expansion of the urban growth boundary, what other time are we gonna be able to do this? ‘Cause at some point, we’re gonna have this discussion again, and I would hate to have this discussion and have it highlighted that we have these isolated pockets of wildlife in the area that we’ve just expanded out to, and now we’re at risk of potentially losing the environment, potentially, and this is a little bit higher level, but potentially a species.

[4:23:48] I just don’t wanna put anything at risk. So, what other time is there to do this? I think if we do this later in the game, it’s gonna cost us more. It’s gonna be harder to plan. It’s gonna take more time. This is the time to do this. So, I would ask for your support on this. Definitely, right Lewis, your next on the list. Thank you, Your Worship. So, I’m gonna get right to the point. I’m gonna move that Fi through FiI be received and take no action. So, I’ll say, no, that’s not the way to handle this.

[4:24:24] Fi to III is actions. We’re at council. It can be voted on separately. If we voted down, we’re taking no action on it, and it’s a decided matter of council. So, it doesn’t, you don’t need like a committee, you would do receive and take no action. Here, it’s already before us. You just vote against F. And then that is a decision. Okay. I’ll follow your guidance on that. Okay. So, F can be called separate, and then by voting against it, those things will not happen.

[4:24:58] Okay, so we’re on the whole main motion. We’re on the whole thing right now. And I will call F the three components of F that people want called separate. We’ll call those separate as a separate vote. Okay. And then I’ll speak to the main motion. You can speak to the main motion, go ahead. Okay. So, I’m still gonna focus my comments on F. The earlier pieces of the report, I don’t have any objections to the communications with pause, the information received. I am a little concerned about clause B and the informal get togethers.

[4:25:34] I think that that has to be something that the clerk follows up with the advisory committee chair on though, to make sure that that’s done appropriately, and that we’re not advancing the business of an advisory committee outside of an advisory committee meeting. But I trust the clerk to follow up appropriately with expectations of the advisory committees around that. I will say with F, you know, respectfully, I disagree with what Councilor Ferreira was saying. I think that this is a lot of work on civic administration. Civic administration can look at what the advisory committee has submitted, but they would have to undertake their own professional independent reviews of this information, as well as seek other information outside.

[4:26:19] I’ve already touched on when I did not support the referral. I would not be supporting adding to the development charges and adding to the cost of housing, which is already phenomenally high in our city right now. With respect to concerns about environmental management, you know, every single planning application that comes before PEC has an evaluation from our ecology staff. We have environmental guidelines, which provide for buffer setbacks, those sorts of things as development occurs. We certainly cannot under the Development Charges Act impose development charges for the acquisition of park lands, which means we couldn’t impose DCs that allow us to start buying land to make connections.

[4:27:04] So when we start talking about lands where fragmentation might happen, if we don’t own the land already, it’s going to happen. And we’re not in a position to buy the land. We can take mitigation measures, which we do, through ecological studies, where wetlands are involved, the upper Thames has section 28 processes. There are checks and balances in place on that already. And so for those reasons, I cannot support these requests. We are asking staff to do a tremendous amount of work on something that is really not appropriate at this time, as particularly as it’s being tied to the Urban Growth Boundary Review, which we have to move forward on.

[4:27:47] And we’ve already talked about the deadlines and the Development Charges Study and the background work on that as well. So to me, this is an advisory committee. It’s provided us some information, but to request civic administration to take further action to move these forward. I’m not interested in tasking them with that. I want them to finish the work that they’re doing on the Urban Growth Boundary. We need to make our decision this year, and that’s why I will not be supporting any of the clauses F through, F-I through, F-I-I-I.

[4:28:26] Okay, go ahead, Councilor Trossa, on the main motion. Yes, on the main motion, the advisory committee is not asking this body to do something at this point. The COPS committee, which adopted the advisory committee report, a standing committee of this council is asking this committee to do something. And the question is, now that we’re at the merits, wildlife crossings, underpasses, exclusionary fencing, transportation planning, these are important points. I’m not going to ask for a step into a closed legal session now to talk about what our environmental obligations are, but it’s something that we should consider.

[4:29:11] The fact that this advisory committee has caught and has called to our attention some important points does not detract from the importance of what that advisory committee did. And once again, I’m grateful to them, and this is a function of the special expertise that we have on these committees. And I’m grateful that we have this special expertise, but let’s not make the mistake of saying, well, this came from an advisory committee, and I’m not interested in that as much. This came from a council committee.

[4:29:45] The vote on this was five to nothing. This was duly on our agenda, and it was properly on our agenda, and it wasn’t objective too. So I’m having a little bit of difficulty, and I think maybe people need to take, when you see a report of an advisory committee on a committee agenda, maybe that needs to be read just as carefully as if it was coming from a staff report. So I think we should not show, I wanna just make sure that we don’t disrespect the process here. The process here is the advisory committee, quite appropriately, came to a standing committee, made recommendations.

[4:30:28] The standing committee accepted those recommendations. There was a suggestion that we refer it, that lost, but at this point, we have to deal with the merits. So I’m in favor of the work that the advisory committee has done, and while I was willing to refer it, I think at this point, we have no choice but to accept it. So I’ll be voting yes on this, and I would urge everyone else to do so. Thank you very much. Councillor Boulosa. Thank you, Your Worship.

[4:31:04] We’ve been here a while, and I’m just getting tired, so try not to come across crispy. I’m grateful for all the work that the advisory committees do. I’ll highlight in the next upcoming meeting of PAC. There will be things in there for urban growth boundary review. My question on this specifically, as there’s things in F that I appreciate this and then their scope and their passion about it, personally, building underpasses, not really on my radar, and looking for the 25-year history of agricultural property owned by the city and the ownership over those 25 years.

[4:31:42] A little bit, I know I have the W12A landfill and write a first refusal for purchase, so I know a bunch of stuff that happened out in my ward. So not interested in those long-standing staff reports, realizing their time is limited, and our window is nearing for decision-making. What I am interested to learn and know is some of the issues that you do raise in this within specifically F, for those natural connection corridors for wildlife, having already heard from our indigenous neighbor First Nations, that when we do certain planning, it pushes wildlife out into their area, and they could have, we’ll say, coyotes, just getting pushed further into the reserves in the First Nations because that was our planning decisions, and that’s what we did.

[4:32:34] And if there’s any ESA lands as the staff makes those decision of what’s comes in, what stays out, and how not to part things out, how are those decisions made looking at, is some of this already in your ramble consideration that, regardless of what we do with F, it’s already part of the thought process, or was this something that hadn’t been considered prior? Through you to staff, please. Mr. Mathers. Through you, worship, maybe be helpful, just talk a little bit, the order operations for their big growth review. So currently, there hasn’t been any decisions made as far as where their big growth boundaries is gonna be located.

[4:33:09] There’s some draft mapping, and that’s what this group is looking at. They looked at that draft mapping, and they have an appendix that this refers to specifically that’s in their report. Those areas may or may not be in the UGB, depending on the decisions of council, possibly this November, December. So they’ll have that opportunity to make those choices. Once those lines are established, we bring forward neighborhood plans on a site-by-site basis that would look at how these areas are gonna be serviced, how they’re going to function for a transportation perspective, natural heritage, and is an opportunity to look at all of these aspects as well during that time, and it would be very much methodical and thoughtful, and it’s approaching what’s brought forward to council ultimately.

[4:33:52] And also be very much tied into the development charges process, and that would also highlight the areas that we’d be looking at providing for studies and reports in those pieces. So as I think there’s a lot of great work that’s been done here, it just, you may want to consider about when’s the appropriate time to do that, and once you’ve made that urban growth boundary decision and you’re getting into these neighborhood plans, those are the time periods when you can really have some very specific looks at these lands and be able to bring forward a thoughtful plan moving forward.

[4:34:27] Councilor Palosa. Thank you. And I guess this is where I’m struggling, I appreciate Mr. Mather’s thought process of this might not be the right time, wait till the maps come back, and you can see the actual parcels that we’re dealing with, and then as the board councilors, we’ll have community input at that time, and our own expertise and knowledge of that area coming back. I’m interested in the subject matter trying to get at for those, the thoughtfulness of the connectivity of the land and the process and what we might be affecting.

[4:35:05] My hesitation is the large studies. I don’t need them and I don’t, I think it’s a little bit too much as Deputy Mayor Lewis would say the cart before the horse on this one, not knowing what exactly, what lands exactly we’re speaking of. Thank you. Okay, any of the speakers on this? And I will call those three components of F separately. Oh, Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, your worship, I do have one question just listening to the debate. So by not supporting F, are we delaying the working group to look at future neighborhoods and having those conversations?

[4:35:50] Mr. May, there’s commented on, are we delaying that for one year by not supporting F? It’s my question. I think Mr. May, there’s two comments on this earlier. If you just clarify that piece a little bit. Through you, Your Worship, I think there’s still a lot of great work that this committee could do, providing commentary back related to urban growth boundary expansion. So it shouldn’t delay anything. They should still be able to do that work. And of course, if they provide those comments, it might be something that we bring forward in next year or two years from now. But I think it’s really good to at least gather that information, provide it to staff so we can consider it.

[4:36:30] Well, I’ll be supporting F. I don’t want to create delays going forward. So thank you. Okay, any of the speakers? Okay, so. Point of order question. Sure. And I guess I’m sorry not sorry for this ‘cause rather deal with it now than finding out something happened later. So if we’re talking about F, we’ll use two as an example. That’s a recommendation to be requested to develop a broader natural heritage connect to a plan for the lands in the West and to be moved inside the urban growth boundary.

[4:37:08] So if we vote no now, come those times when Mr. May, there’s a new staff bring forward that report. And we see that there is things in the West and should we decide it would be great to have this natural heritage connectivity plan. Would it be deemed out of order ‘cause it was already decided matter of council not to do it? Sorry, like I said, really in the weeds but procedurally wanting to make sure we’re on the same page. I’m gonna try to be clear on this.

[4:37:55] So the clerk and I conferred and the short answer is no, it won’t. And I’ll tell you why. Is because it’s civic administration would be requested to undertake this study right now. So they wouldn’t do that. Civic administration would be requested to develop a broader natural heritage connectivity plan under those parameters. So they wouldn’t do that right now. Or requested to revise an updated map and so they’re not gonna do that. But as Mr. May said, this process is iterative. The boundaries haven’t been set. If at a certain point in time there is an engagement with the community and they say we need to do some natural heritage work in this component of the plan.

[4:38:32] They wouldn’t stop them from doing that. Staff just aren’t going to at this time develop this broader connectivity plan and move it inside the urban growth boundary and then protect it under the London Plan and Environmental Policy. So it’s a very specific actions being taken. But as Mr. May, there’s identified, there’s a whole bunch of other actions that could be taken in consultation with the subdivision level work and even the work of the urban growth boundary once they’re set that could be in order and not be subject to a decide about our council given the way that this is currently worded. Thank you, I’m satisfied with that. Clerk says I said that right.

[4:39:04] So that’s good. So we’re just gonna get F out of the way first ‘cause then we can just say the balance of the report. So we’re gonna do F-I-I-I and I-I-I. And so this is as it came through committee. So I’m gonna open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion fails four to 10. Okay, and on everything else, we’ll put that on the floor and we’ll open that for voting.

[4:40:05] Mr. Trussell, thank you. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. That concludes the 13th report that the Community Protective Services Committee. Thanks. All right, we’re on to audit. Councilor blows it, go ahead. Thank you. Always a great time on audit. This was the third report of the audit committee. Just letting everyone know, we had three of five members present. We still had quorum of the items. I’ve been asked to pull number four being 4.3, the housing and homelessness value for money audits from MNP as one of the members would like to vote differently.

[4:40:51] Sure, so you wanna put one to three on the floor? Anybody, everybody okay with one to three altogether? Okay, great. The chair moves that in and comments on one to three. Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. I had my hand up. Sorry, go ahead on one to three. Okay, thanks. Just a quick comment that there was a fair bit of discussion around scope and setting scope and what role council and the audit committee would or should have in terms of setting scope to make sure that the reports that we get back are meaningful and what we’re looking for and what the public is expecting from those.

[4:41:29] So anybody who’s interested can go back and watch that audit committee. I won’t repeat them here, but I did appreciate the discussion. Great, any other comments? Okay, we’ll open that for voting then. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you, I’ll now put number four being the housing and homelessness value for money audits on the floor.

[4:42:02] Okay, that’s on the floor. I’ll look for any discussion. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. This one, I did put a submission into the audit committee and I did speak about it fairly at length at the audit committee. So again, I’m not gonna go through it in too much detail, but I did, I voted not in favor of receiving this report and I did say that with all due respect to the auditors, I didn’t feel that we got value from money from this value from money audit because this council in the fall of 2023 approved $12 million on the first two hubs.

[4:42:43] And this was our opportunity to get back a report that celebrated the value created from that $12 million. And I was, although I didn’t support that commitment, I was looking forward to sharing with the public what was created with that money. And so in my letter, I did say that for the Atlosa hub, we already had a contract for those 18 transitional beds and 10 respite beds that went until December of 2024 and we replaced those beds with a hub.

[4:43:18] And we put 1.3 million in capital in and the operational costs went from six or $700,000 a year to over $2 million a year. So what I was hoping from the report, that there would be money and figures and data showing us all the new services and the upgraded results and the new opportunities that were gained with this additional funding. Same with YOU, we put $3 million in capital into only 15 beds and we’ve got operational costs of what I can calculate as $11,000 a month per bed. That’s a lot of money.

[4:43:53] Most of us would be willing to invest in our youth. And so I was excited to hear like what was new and what was created and what’s different about these hubs versus what we were already paying in shelter beds. So again, I’m not gonna read through it all, but we got a report that didn’t have a single dollar value in it, a value for money audit on a $12 million investment on something that we want to continue to do more of in the city. This was a great opportunity for us to get data and figures to share with Londoners.

[4:44:28] So I will be bringing a motion to a future audit committee asking the auditor said that they would be willing to share some of the figures from their working papers. And I think that would be great. I didn’t bother to try to bring a motion to council today. But if you look at the report, it also I was a bit disappointed in it in terms of the scope as well, this is an audit report and an audit committee that’s supposed to hold government departments and agencies accountable for how public money is spent. And instead we heard about inconsistent staffing that was causing difficulties in trauma to already vulnerable people.

[4:45:04] And we heard about not enough breakfast and sort of service oriented things for a third party contractor. And what I wanted was how can we as council ensure that we’re signing great contracts and getting great value for money so that we can do more and more of it with confidence or make little tweaks of improvement on that. So I vehemently did not agree to supporting this value for money audit. Londoners are paying for this audit and I don’t think we got what we wanted. Hence the conversation around scope.

[4:45:38] How can we ensure that we set these audits up to win so that we aren’t disappointed with what we get back out of a contract for service. So I’ll leave it at that. There’s lots in the video if anybody wants to watch it and I’ve got my submission in there. I’ll be voting no and I’ll be talking about this again at the next audit committee. Councilor Plaza. Thank you. Yeah, all our meetings including audit just like anything else is recorded in there. All note to be took about 45 minutes to receive a two page summary before we got into this discussion.

[4:46:12] The meeting went for several hours. This housing and homeless value for money audit, you’ve heard a prior speaker. It is a proper value for money audit. Just not necessarily what a member the committee was looking to see or members of the committee. Anything would need to be laid out in more detail in the scope. If we want specifics, it would need to be laid out. They met the parameters of what we asked for. They delivered those back.

[4:46:45] They outlined that there’s always those intangible benefits in operating a shelter space with rotating people seeking needs is very different than operating a hub with wraparound supports and all the care that they’re getting. So value for money audits do come in different forms. This is a value for money audit, just not inside the specifics. It has been laid out that if a member of audit committee or a member of council, when you see the scope laid out if there’s something really specific you want to put it in there. And at that point, when we’re setting the scope, they’ll let us know if they can meet those objectives within the timelines.

[4:47:20] As the timelines have been set out and audit committee is meeting and guided by their terms of reference. All this being that we set out for audit committee, audit committee sits for the entire four year term. So that would have been done in a couple of years back, but everything is record and Mr. Schultz’s does keep us company making sure we are meeting terms of reference and following procedures. Thanks, Councilor, any other comments on this one? Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. I’m just gonna rise quickly to put this on the public record. It was alluded to that at YOU, there weren’t enough breakfasts.

[4:47:57] It’s not that there weren’t enough breakfasts. And Mr. Cordes, even though he’s retired, still took his time to address this in the media, state that this was a lesson learned from them. Breakfast were being prepared for a breakfast time, and the youth were not all getting up. Surprise, surprise, anybody that’s ever had a teenager in their life knows that they don’t necessarily rise when the rest of the household does. So the youth weren’t getting up and eating the breakfast at the time is being served. And so some of it was going to waste, and then there were complaints later in the day that they hadn’t gotten breakfast ‘cause they’d rolled out a bed at 11 a.m. or 1 p.m.

[4:48:31] or whatever time it happened to be. And then after experiencing housing instability or homelessness, that’s perfectly understandable why they’re not gonna be on any sort of regular schedule. So to their credit, YOU shifted, and they moved to a continental style breakfast model where the youth could help themselves to breakfast as they got up. So it’s not that there wasn’t enough breakfast. It was simply that the original operationalization of meals to serve everything at a sitting, and then serve the next meal at a sitting, and the next meal at the sitting wasn’t working for the folks who were in the YOU youth hub.

[4:49:07] I just thought it was really important to share that out on the public record. It’s not that there wasn’t enough food. It’s just that the meal schedules were not matching what the client needs, and that’s been corrected since. Any other speakers? Go ahead, Councilor McAllister. Thank you through the mayor. I think one of the things I took away from this report and Councilor Palose kind of touched on it as well, but there’s an intangible element I find with these things. I think at the end of the day, we’ve all agreed we want to help people who are in these dire situations, and I don’t think you can do it directly in terms of this is how much money I’m going to dedicate to one person and their journey from homelessness to becoming more stable.

[4:49:53] I think what’s important for me, and I know a lot of Londoners who have expressed the other sentiments with me is we want to help people. Everyone’s journey is going to be different, but at the end of the day, devoting those resources is going to look different depending on people’s needs. And so that’s where I kind of struggle with things like this because I think the audit is important, but at the end of the day, the flow through and actually helping people, that number is not going to be something that you can establish from the outset and say, at the end of the year, I want this many people helped because the reality is some of these people, it will take longer.

[4:50:26] Some of them, yeah, they might have lesser needs, they might be able to get back on their feet and back into society faster. But I think we’re putting this pressure on ourselves to essentially not talk about the services necessarily, but essentially what some people are looking for is just, I just want people in a system and I don’t care what that looks like and how long it takes. And I don’t think you can do that. I think human services have intangibles that we have to recognize. Doing the value for audit for something like this, you’re not going to have the same ROIs as you would with a product per se. And I think sometimes it’s lost in this conversation and I just want to bring it back to that, that I think the intention of these is to see that the programs are working as intended and that at the end of the day, people are going to get it helped.

[4:51:09] The numbers aren’t necessarily where everyone wants them to be, but I think that these programs are doing what they’re supposed to. And ideally, we would like to have more, but there are financial limitations all around. And we continue those efforts to get more money from other levels of government, to get these hubs operational. We’re all still waiting for the hard hub, but I don’t think it’s fair to just look at this and say I don’t think the money was well used because I’ve had the opportunity to see these in operation. I think they’re doing what’s intended and helping on their individual journeys. Thank you.

[4:51:44] Any other speakers to this? Okay. This is the item from the audit committee. It’s on the floor. I’ll open it for voting. So Steven, some votes no. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 13 to one. Thank you and that concludes the audit report. Thank you, Councillor.

[4:52:17] Added reports. So I had the council on closed session, added reports. Councillor Raman has agreed to read that out. It’s not a long one though. It’s not a long one this time. It’s a nice short one. So go ahead. Thank you. Your council on closed session report, lease agreement, London Police Service Board, 2835 Westminster Drive. That on the recommendation of the deputy city manager financial finance support on the advice of the director of Realty Services with respect to the lease agreement for the lease of 2835 Westminster Drive. The lease agreement between the corporation and the city of London and the London Police Service for the tenant attached an appendix A for the lease of the city lands for the tenant’s operational needs for a term of eight years and seven months commencing upon execution of the agreement and ending January 25th, 2034 with four further options for an additional five years.

[4:53:06] Each for consecutive times by the tenant at an annual base rate of $2 prior to taxable payment is legally described as part lot 15 concession five as in 224-251 subject to 124-380-224-251 in the city of London formally the geographic township of Westminster County Middlesex, being all a pin 08-203-0010 LT attached as appendix B be approved and that progress was made with respect to items 4.2 and 4.3 as noted on the public agenda, 6.2 14 ICSC and 6.3 14 ICSC.

[4:53:47] Okay, that’s presented by Councillor ramen. Any debate or discussion that’s moved by her? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Wasn’t it vote? Motion carries 14 to zero. Okay, that’s it for added reports, deferred matters. There are none inquiries. I think there, Councillor Stevenson, you indicated you might have an inquiry.

[4:54:24] Yes, thank you. I was wondering if through you to staff if they could give us an update on what’s been happening at 6.02 Queens. It was in the media just recently and we saw a lot of activity out front and now I hear there’s not a lot of activity out front and I’m just wondering if we could get an update. Go to Mr. Parity, go ahead. Three worship, thank you, Councillor for the question. Civic administration’s been working with the service provider on this piece of property. There’s been lots of conversations of taking place up to date and they’re still taking place. What we’d like to do is compile all of that information, make sure it’s accurate enough to date, circulate it to all members of council and it may answer the questions the Councillor has or my Spark new questions and we can deal with those at that time, but at least all of us will have the most up-to-date information to make sure we’re not speculating on any answers.

[4:55:16] Okay, so you’ll put that together, circulated to all members of council. Okay, Councillor. And I just wanted to be clear that I had circulated that in advance so it wasn’t a on-the-fly question just so everyone knows, but that would be great. Okay, thank you. All right, any other inquiries? Okay, seeing none, we’re on to merge emotions. There are none, bylaws. Okay, here’s how we’re gonna do bylaws.

[4:56:00] We have bill 341, which is the childcare agreement. I’ll do that separate, then we’ll do 342, which is the IHAP agreement, we’ll do that separate. Then we have 349 and 350, which is the Wellington Gateway and Rapid Transit ones. Then we’ll do 355, which is the Southdale Road one. Councillor Hilliard, that’s you. I think, I can’t remember exactly, but then everything else. So that’s how we’ll separate them. Is everybody okay with that?

[4:56:36] Councillor? I believe there was a planning matter where there was a 13 to two vote. Was it Boston? I don’t know, Councillor. If there’s something you want separate in a bill, not every planning matter has bylaws associated with it, but I don’t just separate them because there’s votes at committee that way. I separate them if people indicate they want them separated at a time. And so if there was something, we can do it separate, but if there’s not, then we’ll be all together. This is the time to let me know if you want something else separate. Okay, so stick with the plan.

[4:57:09] Is there anybody who’s supportive of everything? Like Councillor Cady, hey, great. And Councillor Ferrera, all right. You two can move in second at all. Very agreeable. We’ll start with bill 341, moved by Councillor Cady, seconded by Councillor Ferrera. And again, this is the Community Protective Services Committee agreement for construction or renovation of leased child care spaces and early year programs. We’ll open first reading for voting. Motion carries 13 to one.

[4:57:53] Okay, second reading, we’ll have the same mover and seconder. Any discussion on second reading? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open second reading. Councillor Palazzo votes yes, and I’m going virtual. Motion vote carries 13 to one. Okay, and then third and final reading of this particular bill, same mover and seconder, we’ll open third reading for voting. Councillor Palazzo votes yes.

[4:58:33] Motion carries 13 to one. Okay, next is bill 342, which is the IHAP agreement. That’s item 2.6 from CPSC. I’ll have the same mover and seconder from the last set, and we’ll open first reading for voting. Motion blows, it votes yes. Motion carries 13 to one. Second reading, same mover and seconder. Any debate or discussion on second reading? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open second reading for voting.

[4:59:09] Councillor Palazzo votes yes. Motion carries 13 to one. All right, third and final reading of this bill, same mover and seconder, we’ll open that for voting. Yes. Motion carries 13 to one.

[4:59:47] All right, next we’ll do the combined bills 349 and 350 together. These are two bills associated with the Wellington Gateway project of the same mover and seconder, and we’ll open first reading for voting. Motion carries 13 to one. Second reading of the same set of bills. Any debate on second reading? Seeing none, we’ll open second reading for voting. Motion carries 13 to one.

[5:00:28] Third and final reading of these two bills, we’ll open third reading for voting. Motion carries 13 to one. Okay, the next is bill 355, which is the 767 state of the road item from PEC. We’ll use the same mover and seconder’s last set of motions and we’ll open first reading for voting.

[5:01:33] Councillor Palazzo. Yes. Motion carries 12 to two. Second reading of this bill, sorry. Any debate or discussion? Okay, we’ll open second reading. Yes. Motion carries 12 to two.

[5:02:14] Okay, third and final reading of this bill, for same mover and seconder, we’ll open third reading for voting. Motion carries 12 to two. Okay, and now it’ll be everything else plus the added bill from the closed session report that Councillor Ramen read out. So everything else plus that added bill, we’ll use the same mover and seconder and we’ll close the votes, yes. Motion carries 14 to zero.

[5:03:02] Second reading of the same package of bills. Seeing none, we’ll open this for voting. Close the votes, yes. Motion carries 14 to zero. And third and final reading of this. One sec, we’re just, we’re going so fast. East grad can’t actually keep up, which seems kind of amazing to speak regarding, but okay, third and final reading of this set of bills, we’re going to open that for voting.

[5:03:42] Close the votes. Motion carries 14 to zero. All right, that’s it for bylaws. I just need a motion to adjourn. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for that. Councillor Deppie, Mayor Lewis, Councillor McAllister, second. Louis by hand, all those in favor of adjournment. Close the votes, yes. Motion carries. All right, thank you.