Open Council

16th Council Meeting

Open Council

16th Council Meeting

October 14, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:02 PM.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

At 1:03 PM, Councillors S. Trosow and S. Hillier enter the meeting.

At 1:05 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen enters the meeting.

That it BE NOTED Councillor P. Van Meerbergen discloses a pecuniary interest in item 8, clause 2.5 of the 15th Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee and related Bill No. 366 having to do with City/County Cost Apportionment & Agency Agreements for Land Ambulance, Ontario Works, Housing, Child Care and Homelessness Prevention Program by indicating that his wife owns and operates a day care.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

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

4.1 Personal Matter/ Identifiable Individual

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2026 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List. (6.1/12/SPPC)

4.2 Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Confidential Trade Secret or Scientific, Technical, Commercial, Financial or Labour Relations Information, Supplied to the City / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; including communications necessary for that purpose, and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation; a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations information, supplied in confidence to the municipality or local board, which, if disclosed, could reasonably be expected to prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of a person, group of persons, or organization; and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality or local board. (6.1/15/ICSC)

4.3 Land Disposition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Commercial or Financial Information Belonging to the City / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations

A matter pertaining to the disposition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.2/15/ICSC)

4.4 Personal Matter/Identifiable Individual

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2026 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List. (6.1/14/CPSC)

4.5 Personal Matter/Identifiable Individual

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2026 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List. (6.2/14/CPSC)

4.6 Personal Matter/Identifiable Individual

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2026 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List (6.3/14/CPSC)

4.7 Personal Matter/Identifiable Individual

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2026 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List (6.4/14/CPSC)

4.8 Personal Matter/Identifiable Individual

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2026 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List (6.1/15/PEC)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

The Council convenes In Closed Session, from 1:08 PM to 1:15 PM.

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

5.1   15th Meeting held on September 23, 2025

2025-09-23 Council Minutes - with attachment

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the Minutes of the 15th Meeting of the Municipal Council, held on September 23, 2025, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

6.1 Briefing Note - 602 Queens Avenue

6.2 Proposed Temporary Warming Centre Framework 

 1. D. Brown, W. Thomas, C. Watson, Coordinators, Midtown Community Organization 

 2. P. Gioiosa

6.3 Health and Homelessness Whole of Community System Response Research and Evaluation Report 

 1. Councillor S. Stevenson

6.4 Micro-Modular Shelter Site 

 1. D. Amin 

 2. S. Smith 

 3. J. Bardawill 

 4. A. Nelson 

 5. D. Jackson

6.5 Traffic Calming Policy Standards for New Subdivisions 

 1. A. Clark, Fanshawe College

6.6 Official Plan Review of The London Plan: Final Industrial Land Needs Assessment, Urban Growth Boundary Review Update, and Process Updates 

 1. P. Hinde, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd. 

 2. P. Matkowski, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants 

 3. K. Patpatia and J. Manocha 

 4. L. Blumer 

 5. M.A. Hodge 

 6. N. Caranci 

 7. P. Masschelein, Sifton Properties Limited 

 8. L. Jamieson, Intermediate Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd. 

 9. S. Farhi, Farhi Holdings Corporation 

 10. P. Verkley, President, Middlesex Federation of Agriculture

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the communication dated October 2, 2025 from J. Paul Dube, Ombudsman regarding Closed Meeting Complaints BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

7.1   Mayor J. Morgan, Deputy Mayor S. Lewis, Councillors A. Hopkins and S. Franke - Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE)

2025-10-14 - Motion - Automated Speed Enforcement

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That pursuant to section 11.3 of the Council Procedure By-law, leave BE GRANTED to permit Mayor J. Morgan, Deputy Mayor S. Lewis, Councillors A. Hopkins and S. Franke to move a motion related to item 7.1 on the Council Agenda related to Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

At 1:36 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair.

At 1:38 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, the following resolution BE ADOPTED and BE FORWARDED to the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Minister of Transportation, and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario Policy Centre:

WHEREAS reducing vehicle speeds helps create calmer, safer neighbourhoods that encourage people to use active forms of transportation and to be active in their communities.

WHEREAS municipalities need a broad range of tools to improve road safety and are increasingly adopting provincially regulated Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) programs as a proven tool, particularly in school zones.

WHEREAS in London the deployment of the 7 ASE cameras in school zones, it being noted London has ONLY deployed ASE in school zones, has shown an average decrease between 5-7km/hr.

WHEREAS speeders – not taxpayers – pay the cost and where in London the net revenue in 2024 represented $105,088 which was entirely reinvested into road safety initiatives such as installation of pedestrian crossings, improved pavement line painting, and signal modification improvements.

WHEREAS Ontario’s police leaders view ASE not as a revenue tool, but as a traffic safety tool with the purpose of deterrence and prevention – helping to change driver behavior and reduce collisions.

WHEREAS by complementing traditional police enforcement, ASE frees up police resources to focus on other pressing public safety priorities.

WHEREAS the CAA has found nearly three quarters of Ontario drivers support the use of ASE in targeted areas like school zones or community centres.

WHEREAS the varying approaches across municipalities presents an opportunity to promote consistency and alignment with emerging best practices province wide.

WHEREAS municipalities and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) can work together with the province to strengthen how the cameras are used to deliver safer streets efficiently and fairly.

WHEREAS the use of ASE should be a local decision taken by municipalities as an accountable, elected order of government.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Province of Ontario, through the Ministry of Transportation work collaboratively with AMO and municipalities that operate ASE programs to strengthen the ASE program.

AND FURTHER THAT a copy of this motion be sent to the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Minister of Transportation, and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario Policy Centre.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

7.2   Councillor S. Franke - Revisiting the Urban Growth Boundary Review Using Updated Population Projections

2025-10-14 - Reconsideration - UBG - S. Franke

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by E. Peloza

That pursuant to section 11.3 of the Council Procedure By-law, leave BE GRANTED to permit Councillor S. Franke to move a motion related to item 7.2 on the Council Agenda related to Revisiting the Urban Boundary Review Using Updated Population Projections.

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

8.   Reports

8.1   12th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2025-10-07 SPPC Report 12

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 12th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) Mayoral Direction 2024-001, City-Owned Parking Lot Redevelopment in Old East Village

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 Mayoral Direction 2024-001:

a)    the City-owned Parking Lot Redevelopment update provided in the report BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take no further action on redevelopment at 641 Queens Avenue for housing;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take no further action on a Request for Expression of Interest to solicit proposals from potential development partners to construct housing at 641 Queens Avenue; and

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to implement a free parking pilot for the 641 Queens Avenue and 434 Elizabeth Street parking lots until the end of Q1 2027;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard delegations from S. Merritt, F. Filice and K. Morrison, Executive Director, Old East Village Business Improvement Area with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (3.1) Water and Wastewater Rates (Relates to Bill No.’s 375 and 376)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure and the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2026 Water and Wastewater rates and charges:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated October 7, 2025 as Appendix “A”, to amend By-law WM-28 being “A by-law for regulation of wastewater and stormwater drainage systems in the City of London” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 14, 2025, to effect rates and charges increases of 2.4 percent effective January 1, 2026; and

b)    the proposed  by-law, as appended to the staff report dated October 7, 2025 as Appendix “B”, to amend By-law W-8 being “A by-law to provide for the Regulation of Water Supply in the City of London” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 14, 2025, to effect rates and charges increases of 2.2 percent effective January 1, 2026;

it being noted that no individuals spoke at the public participation meeting associated with this matter.

Motion Passed

8.2   15th Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee

2025-10-06 ICSC Report 15

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 15th Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 4 (2.3) and 8 (2.5).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by C. Rahman

That it BE NOTED Councillor P. Van Meerbergen discloses a pecuniary interest in item 2.5 having to do with City/County Cost Apportionment & Agency Agreements for Land Ambulance, Ontario Works, Housing, Child Care and Homelessness Prevention Program by indicating that his wife owns and operates a day care.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) City of London’s Credit Rating

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the City of London’s Credit Rating Report, providing a summary of Moody’s Investors Service Credit Opinion of the City of London, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) Fall 2025 Debenture Issuance Update (Relates to Bill No. 362)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated October 6, 2025 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 14, 2025 to execute the borrowing upon serial debentures in the aggregate principal amount of $21,671,000 towards the cost of certain capital works of the Corporation of the City of London, it being noted that the City’s debenture issuance has been placed with investors and priced within the capital markets at an average all-in rate of 4.33% over a 20-year term.

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (2.4) 2025 Mid-Year Capital Budget Monitoring Report

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2025 Mid-Year Capital Budget Monitoring Report:

a)    the 2025 Mid-Year Capital Budget Monitoring Report BE RECEIVED for information, it being noted that the life-to-date capital budget represents $4.6 billion with $2.4 billion committed and $2.2 billion uncommitted;

b)    the status updates of active 2022 life-to-date capital budgets (2022 and prior) having no future budget requests, as appended to the staff report dated October 6, 2025 as Appendix “B”, BE RECEIVED for information;

c)    the following actions be taken with respect to the completed capital projects identified in Appendix “C”, and the budget adjustments identified in Appendix “D”, as appended to the staff report:

i) the capital projects included in Appendix “C”, with net surplus funding of $5.9 million, BE CLOSED;

ii) the capital funding identified in Appendix “D”, Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 with net surplus funding of $25.5 million, BE RELEASED;

iii) the following actions be taken with respect to the funding associated with i) and ii), above:

Rate Supported

A) pay-as-you-go funding of $2.9 million BE TRANSFERRED to capital receipts;

B) authorized but unissued debt financing of $1.9 million BE RELEASED from the capital budget; 

C) uncommitted reserve fund drawdowns of $679 thousand BE RELEASED back into the reserve funds which originally funded the projects;

Non-Rate Supported

D) uncommitted reserve fund drawdowns of $24.3 million BE RELEASED back into the reserve funds which originally funded the projects;

E) other net non-rate supported funding adjustments of $1.7 million BE APPROVED in order to facilitate project closings; including the transfer of $816 thousand of Canada Community-Building Fund financing from TS6025-Bike Share Program back to EV6020-Active Transportation.

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (2.6) Appointment of Consulting Engineer for the Hyde Park Sewage Pumping Station Capacity Upgrade

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the award of consulting services for the completion of the Preliminary and Detailed Design, and Contract Administration of the Hyde Park Sewage Pumping Station Capacity Upgrade:

a)    Dillon Consulting Limited BE APPOINTED Design Consulting Engineers in the amount of $547,317.00, including contingency, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 15.1 (c) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for the project BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Sources of Financing Report” as appended to the staff report dated October 6, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’;

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (2.7) IESO RFP Municipal Support Confirmation 2440 Scanlan Street and 580 Industrial Road

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following actions be taken with respect to IESO RFP Municipal Support Confirmation requirements for solar panel projects within the City of London:

a)    the Municipal Resolution in Support of Proposal Submission, as appended to the staff report dated October 6, 2025 as Appendix “A”, BE APPROVED to provide Municipal Support Confirmation of the rooftop solar projects proposed at 2440 Scanlan Street and 580 Industrial Road;

b)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute an addendum to the Pre-Engagement Confirmation Notice in the form as appended to the staff report dated October 6, 2025 as Appendix “B” acknowledging the City’s support of the Proposal as described in the Pre-Engagement Confirmation Notice and acknowledging that the Pre-Engagement Confirmation Notice was received by the City less than sixty (60) days prior to the Proposal Submission Deadline;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to explore the opportunity for providing a Blanket Municipal Support Resolution to address future IESO Requests for Proposal Submissions, develop a procedure to identify a Local Body Administrator for the purposes of pre-engagement, and establish an engagement plan; and

d)    this report BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.3) 2025 Mid-Year Operating Budget Monitoring Report (Relates to Bill No. 371)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2025 Mid-Year Operating Budget Monitoring Report:

a)    the 2025 Operating Budget Mid-Year Monitoring Report for the Property Tax Supported Budget, Water Budget, and Wastewater and Treatment Budget BE RECEIVED for information. An overview of the corporate projections are outlined below, noting actual results could fluctuate based on factors beyond the control of the Civic Administration:

i)    Property Tax Supported Budget projected surplus of $23.6 million;

ii)    Water Rate Supported Budget projected surplus of $2.3 million; 

iii)    Wastewater and Treatment Rate Supported Budget projected surplus of $4.3 million;

it being noted that the Property Tax, Water, and Wastewater & Treatment Budget surplus will be allocated in accordance with the Council-approved Surplus/Deficit Policy;

b)    on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated October 6, 2025 as Appendix “C”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 14, 2025, to amend By-law No. CPOL.-43-239, as amended, to implement a new Council Policy entitled “Treatment of Operating Surpluses/Deficits – Local Agencies, Boards and Commissions”.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

8.2.8   (2.5) City/County Cost Apportionment & Agency Agreements for Land Ambulance, Ontario Works, Housing, Child Care and Homelessness Prevention Programs (Relates to Bill No.’s 363 to 367)

Motion made by C. Rahman

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

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated October 6, 2025 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 14, 2025 to approve the Land Ambulance Services Cost Apportionment Agreement (“Schedule A”) between The Corporation of the City of London and The Corporation of the County of Middlesex and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement;

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated October 6, 2025 as Appendix “B”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 14, 2025 to approve the Ontario Works Services Cost Apportionment and Agency Agreement (“Schedule B”) between The Corporation of the City of London and The Corporation of the County of Middlesex and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement;

c)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated October 6, 2025 as Appendix “C”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 14, 2025 to approve the Housing Services Cost Apportionment Agreement (“Schedule C”) between The Corporation of the City of London and The Corporation of the County of Middlesex and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement;

d)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated October 6, 2025 as Appendix “D”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 14, 2025 to approve the Child Care Services Cost Apportionment and Agency Agreement (“Schedule D”) between The Corporation of the City of London and The Corporation of the County of Middlesex and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement; and

e)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated October 6, 2025 as Appendix “E”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 14, 2025 to approve the Homelessness Prevention Cost Apportionment and Agency Agreement (“Schedule E”) between The Corporation of the City of London and The Corporation of the County of Middlesex and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement.

Motion made by C. Rahman

That part d) be approved:

d)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated October 6, 2025 as Appendix “D”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 14, 2025 to approve the Child Care Services Cost Apportionment and Agency Agreement (“Schedule D”) between The Corporation of the City of London and The Corporation of the County of Middlesex and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement; and

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the balance of item 8, clause 2.5, be approved:

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

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated October 6, 2025 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 14, 2025 to approve the Land Ambulance Services Cost Apportionment Agreement (“Schedule A”) between The Corporation of the City of London and The Corporation of the County of Middlesex and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement;

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated October 6, 2025 as Appendix “B”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 14, 2025 to approve the Ontario Works Services Cost Apportionment and Agency Agreement (“Schedule B”) between The Corporation of the City of London and The Corporation of the County of Middlesex and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement;

c)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated October 6, 2025 as Appendix “C”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 14, 2025 to approve the Housing Services Cost Apportionment Agreement (“Schedule C”) between The Corporation of the City of London and The Corporation of the County of Middlesex and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement;

e)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated October 6, 2025 as Appendix “E”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 14, 2025 to approve the Homelessness Prevention Cost Apportionment and Agency Agreement (“Schedule E”) between The Corporation of the City of London and The Corporation of the County of Middlesex and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 8, clause 2.5, reads as follows:

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

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated October 6, 2025 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 14, 2025 to approve the Land Ambulance Services Cost Apportionment Agreement (“Schedule A”) between The Corporation of the City of London and The Corporation of the County of Middlesex and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement;

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated October 6, 2025 as Appendix “B”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 14, 2025 to approve the Ontario Works Services Cost Apportionment and Agency Agreement (“Schedule B”) between The Corporation of the City of London and The Corporation of the County of Middlesex and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement;

c)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated October 6, 2025 as Appendix “C”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 14, 2025 to approve the Housing Services Cost Apportionment Agreement (“Schedule C”) between The Corporation of the City of London and The Corporation of the County of Middlesex and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement;

d)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated October 6, 2025 as Appendix “D”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 14, 2025 to approve the Child Care Services Cost Apportionment and Agency Agreement (“Schedule D”) between The Corporation of the City of London and The Corporation of the County of Middlesex and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement; and

e)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated October 6, 2025 as Appendix “E”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 14, 2025 to approve the Homelessness Prevention Cost Apportionment and Agency Agreement (“Schedule E”) between The Corporation of the City of London and The Corporation of the County of Middlesex and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement.

8.3   14th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2025-09-29 CPSC Report

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 14th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 3 (2.4), 4 (2.5), 7 (2.3), 9 (3.1), and 10 (3.2).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) 4th Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 4th Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on September 11, 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.7) Land Disposal Process Implementation Strategy

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated September 29, 2025, related to the Land Disposal Process Implementation Strategy:

a)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to allocate surplus municipal lands for the purpose of affordable housing development, including:

i)    surplus lands acquired for Capital Works Projects;

ii)    surplus Lands as identified in Appendix ‘A’ – Underutilized City-owned Lands;

iii)    surplus Lands vested to the municipality through failed tax sales; and,

iv)    other municipally-owned lands not previously contemplated, where there is a demonstrated interest by the City for affordable housing development;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to allocate funds to the original funding source at the original purchase price where surplus municipal lands acquired for capital works projects have been identified for affordable housing;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to allocate funds to offset the property tax arrears for surplus municipal lands identified for affordable housing that have been vested through failed tax sales;

d)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to reallocate the lands identified in Appendix ‘A’ - Underutilized City-Owned Lands for the purpose of affordable housing developments;

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to allocate proceeds from the sale of lands resulting from City-led, shovel ready development initiatives to the Affordable Housing Reserve Fund;

f)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to update the Sale of Major Asset Policy to specifically exclude land held for the purposes of affordable housing from the policy, it being noted that proceeds from the disposition of lands held for affordable housing will be allocated to the Affordable Housing Reserve Fund; and,

g)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts necessary to implement these recommendations.

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (2.2) Single Source Procurement - Integrated Employment Services Digital Service Delivery Platform - SS-2025-208 

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated September 29, 2025, related to the Single Source Procurement for an Integrated Employment Services Digital Service Delivery Platform SS-2025-208:

a)    a single source procurement, in accordance with sections 21(c), 14.4(d), and 14.4(e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, BE APPROVED to 2464420 Ontario Inc.SS-2025-208 through (PS-25-UP017) at a cost of $264,938 for a one-year term;

b)    the revised proposed by-law, as appended to the Added Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on October 14, 2025 to:

i)    authorize and approve the 2464420 Ontario Inc. Agreement (“Agreement”) for the Contract between the Corporation of the City of London and 2464420 Ontario Inc.; as attached as Schedule 1;

ii)    delegate to the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, and the City Manager the authority and power to:

A)    represent the City (City representatives) with respect to the Agreement, 

B)    execute the agreement on behalf of the City of London; 

C)    approve and execute amending agreements to the Service Agreement, as attached as Schedule 2, that are consistent with the requirements contained in the Service Agreement, and do not require additional City of London funding; and,

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

iv)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract, statement of work, or other documentation, if required, to give effect to these recommendations.

Motion Passed

8.3.8   (2.6) Winter Overnight Parking Policy Change

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated September 29, 2025, related to a Winter Overnight Parking Policy Change:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated September 29, 2025, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held October 14, 2025 for the purpose of amending the City of London Traffic and Parking By-Law PS-114 to adjust the duration of the seasonal on-street overnight parking restriction to November 15th to March 31st and amend the definition of “City approved mobile payment application” to enable users to pay for Overnight Parking when required; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to include in the 2026 Fees and Charges By-law update a reduction in the overnight on street parking permit fee from $15.00 to $5.00.

Motion Passed

8.3.11   (5.1) 6th 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 6th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on September 25, 2025:

a)    the Committee Clerk BE REQUESTED to invite the Civic Administration to the next Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee (ESACAC) meeting to assist with items on the ESACAC Work Plan;

b)    that “Nature Lives Here” lawn signs BE PURCHASED with the remainder of the 2025 Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee Budget; and,

c)    clauses 1.1, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 5.1, 5.4 and 6.1 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.4) Bike Parking Implementation Plan 2025-2029

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated September 29, 2025, related to the Bike Parking Implementation Plan 2025-2029:

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to implement the Bike Parking Implementation Plan 2025-2029 as part of the Mobility Master Plan; it being noted that the required operating and capital budgets for 2026 and 2027 are available in the adopted 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to establish an on-line format to receive ongoing feedback on bike parking experiences, challenges and opportunities between December 2025 and December 2026; and,

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare and submit a Business Case as part of the 2028-2031 Multi-Year Budget to expand bike parking.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

8.3.4   (2.5) Part Two: Green Bin and Biweekly Garbage Collection Program - Next Steps 

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated September 29, 2025, related to Part Two: Green Bin and Biweekly Garbage Collection Program Next Steps:

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to complete an implementation plan for a one-year pilot project to add pet waste to the Green Bin Program in a few areas totaling between 1,000 and 3,000 households including resident information details, costs, benefits, monitoring and identify a proposed start date for Quarter 2 (Q2) 2026;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to focus on program optimization by increasing the quantity of existing Green Bin materials being captured and increasing program participation;

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take no action on expanding the materials collected in the Green Bin Program at this time;

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to implement a pilot project to add churches providing food services and non-profit organizations providing food services to residents of London and are located on residential collection routes over a three-month period starting December 1, 2025, and take no action on other additional collection services at this time;

f)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to establish a fee or fees for those townhome complexes that cannot implement a Green Bin program due to on-site constraints and require weekly garbage collection and report back in Quarter 1 (Q1) 2026; and,

g)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide the next comprehensive Green Bin and Biweekly Garbage Collection Program update report for April 2027.

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the motion be amended to include a new part that reads as follows:

The Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with further evaluation and associated cost analysis regarding the implementation of weekly garbage collection during the July and August months.

Motion Failed (4 to 11)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Motion to approve part d):

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take no action on expanding the materials collected in the Green Bin Program at this time;

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, pursuant to section 10.5 of the Council Procedure By-law, “shall the ruling of the Chair BE SUSTAINED?”

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the motion be amended to include a new part that reads as follows:

That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Community and Protective Services Committee on the feasibility of including diaper waste in the Green Bin Program;

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the motion be further amended by adding “menstrual products” to the list of materials included in the Green Bin Program.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Lehman

That part d), as amended, be approved:

That Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the Community and Protective Services Committee on the feasibility of including diaper and menstrual product waste in the Green Bin Program;

Motion Failed (3 to 12)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That item 4, clause 2.5, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 4, clause 2.5, as amended, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated September 29, 2025, related to Part Two: Green Bin and Biweekly Garbage Collection Program Next Steps:

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to complete an implementation plan for a one-year pilot project to add pet waste to the Green Bin Program in a few areas totaling between 1,000 and 3,000 households including resident information details, costs, benefits, monitoring and identify a proposed start date for Quarter 2 (Q2) 2026;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to focus on program optimization by increasing the quantity of existing Green Bin materials being captured and increasing program participation;

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to implement a pilot project to add churches providing food services and non-profit organizations providing food services to residents of London and are located on residential collection routes over a three-month period starting December 1, 2025, and take no action on other additional collection services at this time;

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to establish a fee or fees for those townhome complexes that cannot implement a Green Bin program due to on-site constraints and require weekly garbage collection and report back in Quarter 1 (Q1) 2026; and

f)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide the next comprehensive Green Bin and Biweekly Garbage Collection Program update report for April 2027.

8.3.7   (2.3) Proposed Temporary Warming Centre Framework

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Managers of Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services and Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated September 29, 2025, related to a Proposed Temporary Warming Centre Framework:

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to implement the Proposed Temporary Warming Centre Framework for Winter 2025/2026 and Winter 2026/2027 as outlined in the above-noted staff report; and,

c)    financing for the Proposed Temporary Warming Centre Framework for Winter 2026/2027 BE APPROVED from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve in an amount of up to $3,632,500; it being noted that the cost of Winter 2025/2026 is funded through existing budgets and available Provincial Homeless Prevention Program Funding;

it being noted that a verbal delegation from S. Campbell, Ark Aid, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That pursuant to section 13.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, the Council decision with respect to item 7, clause 2.3 having to do with the Proposed Temporary Warming Centre Framework BE RECONSIDERED to provide for Councillor S. Trosow to correct his vote.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Managers of Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services and Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated September 29, 2025, related to a Proposed Temporary Warming Centre Framework:

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to implement the Proposed Temporary Warming Centre Framework for Winter 2025/2026 and Winter 2026/2027 as outlined in the above-noted staff report; and,

c)    financing for the Proposed Temporary Warming Centre Framework for Winter 2026/2027 BE APPROVED from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve in an amount of up to $3,632,500; it being noted that the cost of Winter 2025/2026 is funded through existing budgets and available Provincial Homeless Prevention Program Funding;

it being noted that a verbal delegation from S. Campbell, Ark Aid, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

8.3.9   (3.1) Health and Homelessness Whole of Community System Response Research and Evaluation Report

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated September 29, 2025, related to the Health and Homelessness Whole of Community System Response Research and Evaluation Report:

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED; and,

b)    the Mayor and Municipal Council BE REQUESTED to continue to prioritize advocacy efforts with the Federal and Provincial governments to secure ongoing operating funding in support of the provision of related services;

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

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the motion be amended to include a new part that reads as follows:

The Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with the requested metrics as presented and discussed at the October 8, 2024 meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee.

Motion Failed (6 to 9)

At 3:22 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen leaves the meeting.

At 3:23 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen enters the meeting.

At 3:29 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair.

At 3:29 PM, Councillor S. Franke leaves the meeting.

At 3:32 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

At 3:34 PM, Councillor S. Franke enters the meeting.

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the preamble, part a), and it being noted, be approved:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated September 29, 2025, related to the Health and Homelessness Whole of Community System Response Research and Evaluation Report:

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED; and,

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

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That part b) be approved:

b)    the Mayor and Municipal Council BE REQUESTED to continue to prioritize advocacy efforts with the Federal and Provincial governments to secure ongoing operating funding in support of the provision of related services;

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 9, clause 3.1, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated September 29, 2025, related to the Health and Homelessness Whole of Community System Response Research and Evaluation Report:

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED; and,

b)    the Mayor and Municipal Council BE REQUESTED to continue to prioritize advocacy efforts with the Federal and Provincial governments to secure ongoing operating funding in support of the provision of related services;

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

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by D. Ferreira

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

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 3:46 PM and reconvenes at 4:04 PM.

8.3.10   (3.2) Adequate and Suitable Cooling By-law and Maximum Temperature Amendments to the AMPs By-law (A-54)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated September 29, 2025, related to the Adequate and Suitable Cooling By-law and Maximum Temperature Amendments to the AMPs By-law (A-54):

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 14th, 2025, for a new Adequate and Suitable Cooling By-law; 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 October 14th, 2025, to amend the AMPS By-law, By-law No. A-54, to introduce new administrative penalty amounts for the proposed Adequate and Suitable Cooling By-law;

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

  • J. Smith; and,

  • A. Caskey;

it being noted that communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from M. Wallace, London Development Institute and K.M. Pagniello, Neighbourhood Legal Services, with respect to this matter, were received.

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

8.4   15th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2025-10-08 Special CPSC Report

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 15th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of item 2 (4.1).

Motion Passed (15 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   (4.1) Micro-Modular Shelter Site

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated October 8, 2025 related to a Micro-Modular Shelter Site:

a)    the Micro-Modular Shelter Site implementation plan as described in this report BE ENDORSED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to finalize 1710 Wilton Grove Road as the location for an up to 2-year temporary Micro-Modular Shelter Site subject to obtaining required permits and approvals;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake procurement for all structures and services required to implement the Micro-Modular Shelter Site;

d)    funding for the costs of the Micro-Modular Shelter Site through April 2027 BE APPROVED from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve;

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

f)    the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into all necessary agreements and contracts noting that Civic Administration will report back to Council on the outcome of the negotiated agreements and formal contract awards;

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

h)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to Council upon the start of operation of the Micro-Modular Shelter Site and to provide an update after one year of operation of the site.

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the motion be amended by adding the following parts:

i) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a Briefing Note on the public agenda of the Community and Protective Services Committee regarding agreements and contracts as they are finalized;

j) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to have discussion with London Transit Commission administration regarding Route 30 in terms of service frequency and any concerns;

k) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to arrange for optional site tours for Members of Council and media prior to the opening of the Micro-Modular Shelter Site.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the motion be further amended in part i) by changing “regarding” to “with the” before the text “agreements and contracts as they are finalized;“

Motion Failed (6 to 9)

At 5:07 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair.

At 5:12 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by E. Peloza

That part d) of the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the balance of the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 2, clause 4.1, as amended, read as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated October 8, 2025 related to a Micro-Modular Shelter Site:

a)    the Micro-Modular Shelter Site implementation plan as described in this report BE ENDORSED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to finalize 1710 Wilton Grove Road as the location for an up to 2-year temporary Micro-Modular Shelter Site subject to obtaining required permits and approvals;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake procurement for all structures and services required to implement the Micro-Modular Shelter Site;

d)    funding for the costs of the Micro-Modular Shelter Site through April 2027 BE APPROVED from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve;

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

f)    the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into all necessary agreements and contracts noting that Civic Administration will report back to Council on the outcome of the negotiated agreements and formal contract awards;

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

h)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to Council upon the start of operation of the Micro-Modular Shelter Site and to provide an update after one year of operation of the site;

i) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a Briefing Note on the public agenda of the Community and Protective Services Committee regarding agreements and contracts as they are finalized;

j) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to have discussion with London Transit Commission administration regarding Route 30 in terms of service frequency and any concerns; and

k) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to arrange for optional site tours for Members of Council and media prior to the opening of the Micro-Modular Shelter Site.

At 5:13 PM, Councillor S. Trosow leaves the meeting.

8.5   15th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2025-10-01 - PEC Report

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 15th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 9 (3.5) and 11 (3.7).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.5.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.5.2   (2.1) Heritage Designation of the Property at 1511 Clarke Road

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the staff report dated October 1, 2025, related to Heritage Designation of the Property at 1511 Clarke Road, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.3   (2.2) Ontario Building Faster Fund Update

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the staff report dated October 1, 2025, with respect to the Ontario Building Faster Fund Update BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.4   (2.3) Traffic Calming Policy Standards for New Subdivisions

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the staff report dated October 1, 2025, with respect to traffic calming policy standards for new subdivisions BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.5.5   (3.1) 6th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 6th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning Report (CACP), from the meeting held on September 18th, 2025:

a) if the Civic Administration deems it to be helpful, the Community Advisory Committee on Planning BE REQUESTED to be part of consultations with property owners;

b) clauses 1.1, 3.1 to 3.4, 4.1, 4.2 a) b) c), 5.1 to 5.3, and 6.1, BE RECEIVED;

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prioritize the Priority Listed Properties identified in the Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP);

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

Motion Passed

8.5.6   (3.2) Demolition Request for 533 Clarence Street, West Woodfield Heritage Conservation District

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the application made under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking approval to demolish the existing building on the heritage designated property at 533 Clarence Street, within the West Woodfield Heritage Conservation District, the following actions be taken:

a)    prior to the demolition, the three cornerstones currently located on the building as appended to the staff report dated October 1, 2025, as Appendix “C”, BE SALVAGED by the owner to be retained and incorporated into future interpretive or commemorative measures on the property;

b)    all demolition activities BE LIMITED to above-ground works, allowing for the demolition of the building to grade (Phase 1), as proposed within the Demolition Plan Report, appended to the above-noted staff report, as Appendix “D”;

c)    ground disturbance BE PROHIBITED;

d)    vehicular parking on the retained at-grade concrete slab BE PROHIBITED;

e)    following the demolition, fencing compatible with the heritage character of the West Woodfield Heritage Conservation District BE INSTALLED around the perimeter of the at-grade concrete slab to prevent vehicular access; and,

f)    following the demolition of the building to grade and prior to any ground disturbing activities on the property, archaeological assessment(s) BE COMPLETED to responsibly manage the risk of potential discovery of human remains;

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

  • H. Garrett, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.;

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

Motion Passed

8.5.7   (3.3) 590 Gainsborough Road - Z-25093 (Relates to Bill No.’s 368 and 378)

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 Heikal Group Inc. – Mostafa Heikal (c/o Monteith Brown Planning Consultants) relating to the property located at 590 Gainsborough Road:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated October 1, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 14, 2025, to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, to add a Specific Policy to the Neighbourhoods Place Type, to permit an eight (8) storey mixed-use building and to add the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas;

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 October 14, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 as amended in the above-noted part a)), to change the zoning of the subject lands FROM Holding Residential R9/Neighbourhood Facility (h-101h-139R9-3*H20/NF1) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision/Neighbourhood Facility Special Provision (R9-7(_)*H32)/NF1) Zone; and,

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

i) provide direct pedestrian connections from individual units along Gainsborough Road to the public sidewalk;

ii) provide all-season landscape planting along the west and south property boundaries to ensure adequate screening; and,

iii) orientate the principle building entrance towards Gainsborough Road or the corner of Gainsborough Road and Limberlost Road;

iv) consider locating any above-ground or building-mounted mechanical equipment away from the public street frontages;

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

vi) provide a centrally located and adequately sized common outdoor amenity space;

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

  • J. McGuffin, Monteith Brown Planning Consultant;

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), which encourages growth in settlements areas and land use patterns based on densities and a mix of land uses that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment;

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.5.8   (3.4) 3317 White Oak Road - OZ-25088

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 3317 White Oak Rd Inc. c/o KLM Planning Partners Inc. relating to the property located at 3317 White Oak Road:

a)    the request to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, to change the designation of the subject lands FROM the Light Industrial Place Type TO the Neighbourhoods Place Type, and by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Neighbourhoods Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i) the requested amendment does not satisfy the criteria for adoption of Specific Area Policies;

ii) the requested amendment does not conform to Policy 86_ of The London Plan that directs the most intense forms of development to the Downtown, Transit Villages and along the Rapid Transit Corridors in which the proposed development better aligns;

iii) the request is not in keeping with the recommendations of the Council endorsed Land Needs Assessment whereby the property was not recommended for conversion; and, iv) the requested amendment does not facilitate an appropriate form of development that is sensitive to existing uses and does not represent a good fit to the surrounding area;

b)    the request to AMEND the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016, the Southwest Area Secondary Plan, to change the designation of the subject lands FROM Industrial designation TO High Density Residential designation, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i) the requested amendment does not facilitate compatibility between land uses, and is not integrated and compatible with adjacent development as required in the North Talbot and North Longwoods Residential Neighbourhood; and,

ii) the requested amendment is not in conformity with The London Plan;

c)    the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM Holding Light Industrial (h-9h-162h-186h-187LI6/LI7/LI10) Zone TO a Residential R9 Special Provision (R9-7(_)) Zone, BE REFUSED for the following reasons:

i) the requested amendment is not consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, which directs sensitive land uses to be planned and developed to avoid, minimize and mitigate any potential adverse impacts from odour, noise and other contaminants, minimize the risk to public healthy and safety;

ii) the requested amendment is not consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, which prioritizes Strategic Growth Areas to be the focus of growth and development;

iii) the requested amendment is not inconformity with The London Plan, including but not limited to the Key Directions, City Building policies, Industrial Place Type policies, and the Evaluation Criteria for All Planning and Development Applications; and,

iv) the requested amendment is not appropriate within the existing and planned context;

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

  • R. Mino-Leahan, KLM Planning Partners Inc.;

  • D. Freeman, SLR Consulting Limited;

  • D. Nobel, Cloverdale Paint;

  • M. Everard, Augusta National Inc.; and,

  • M. Moussa;

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

8.5.10   (3.6) 1887 Kilally Road - Official Plan Amendment (City Initiated) (Relates to Bill No. 370) 

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 by the City of London relating to 1887 Kilally Road Official Plan Amendments to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas and Map 3 – Street Classifications:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated October 1, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 14, 2025, to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan, by AMENDING Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas to add a Specific Policy to the Neighbourhoods Place Type to a portion of 1887 Kilally Road to prohibit any new development from occurring until further ecological studies are completed and an ecological compensation area is created;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consult with surrounding landowners regarding alternative options for Neighbourhood Connectors south of Kilally Road and east of Sandford Street, as shown on Map 3 – Street Classification 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:

  • D. Blackwell-Brown;

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

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

  • the recommended amendment is consistent with The London Plan’s intent in accommodating for future residential development while protecting the integrity of natural heritage features; and,

  • aligns with The London Plan’s values of collaboration by working with interested parties to achieve our planning goals;

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

8.5.9   (3.5) 1511 Clarke Road - 39T-24505 (Relates to Bill No.’s 369 and 379)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Sifton Properties Limited relating to the property located at 1511 Clarke Road (Caverhill West):

a) the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council Meeting to be held on October 14, 2025, to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan, to:

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

ii) ADD a new Specific Policy to the Neighbourhoods Place Type, applicable to the subject lands identified as Blocks 10, 11 and 12 and the remnant lands owned by the Applicant on the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision, to permit an apartment building to a maximum height of 30 metres or 8 storeys; and ADD the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas; and,

iii) ADD a new Specific Policy to the Neighbourhoods Place Type, applicable to the subject lands identified as Blocks 5 on the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision, to permit triplexes, fourplexes, stacked townhomes, apartments, emergency care establishments, rooming houses, senior citizen apartment buildings, mixed-use buildings and small-scale community facilities. Apartment buildings, senior citizen apartment buildings and mixed-use buildings shall be permitted to a maximum height of 40 meters or 10 storeys; and ADD the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas;

b) the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 14, 2025, to amend the Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR4) Zone and Environmental Review (ER) Zone, TO Holding Residential Special Provision R1, R7, R8, R9 and Business District Commercial Special Provision BDC (h-8R1-16/R7()/R8-4()/R9-7(_)/BDC) Zone, Holding Residential Special Provision R7, R8, R9 and Business District Commercial BDC Special Provision (h-8R7()/R8-4()/R9-7()/BDC), Holding Residential Special Provision R7, R8, R9 (h-8*R7()/R8-7()/R9-7()), Residential Special Provision R5, R6, R7, R8 and Neighbourhood Facility (h-8R5-7()/R6-5()/R7()/R8-4()/R9-7(_)/NF), Residential Special Provision R5, R6 and R8 (h-8R5-7()/R6-5()R8-4()), Residential Special Provision R1, R3 and R4 (R1-1/R3-1/R4-6()), and Open Space (OS1) Zone

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to subsection 34(17) of the Planning Act, no further notice be given;

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

  • J. McGuffin, Monteith Brown Planning Consultant; and,

  • P. Masschelein, Sifton Properties Ltd.;

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

(to be provided for the Council meeting to be held on October 14, 2025)

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 P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the motion be amended to read as follows:

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Sifton Properties Limited relating to the property located at 1511 Clarke Road (Caverhill West):

a) the proposed by-law, as appended to the Council Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council Meeting to be held on October 14, 2025, to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan, to:

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

ii) ADD a new Specific Policy to the Neighbourhoods Place Type, applicable to the subject lands identified as Block 5 on the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision, to permit an apartment building to a maximum height of 30 metres or 8 storeys; and ADD the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas; and,

iii) ADD a new Specific Policy to the Neighbourhoods Place Type, applicable to the subject lands identified as Blocks 10, 11 and 12 and the remnant lands owned by the applicant on the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision, to permit triplexes, four plexes, stacked townhomes, apartments, emergency care establishments, rooming houses, senior citizen apartment buildings, mixed-use buildings and small-scale community facilities. Apartment buildings, senior citizen apartment buildings and mixed-use buildings shall be permitted to a maximum height of 40 meters or 10 storeys; and ADD the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas.

b) the proposed by-law, as appended to the Council Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 14, 2025, to amend the Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR3) Zone and Environmental Review (ER) Zone, TO Holding Residential Special Provision R1, R7, R8, R9 and Business District Commercial Special Provision BDC (h-8R1-16/R7()/R8-4()/R9-7()/BDC()), Holding Residential Special Provision R7, R8, R9 and Business District Commercial BDC Special Provision (h-8R7()/R8-4()/R9-7()/BDC()), Holding Residential Special Provision R7, R8, R9 (h-8R7()/R8-7()/R9-7(_)), Residential Special Provision R5, R6, R7, R8 and Neighbourhood Facility (h-8R5-7()/R6-5()/R7()/R8-4()/R9-7()/NF), Holding Residential Special Provision R5, R6 and R8(h-8*R5-7()/R6-5()R8-4()), Residential Special Provision R1, R3 and R4 (R1-1/R3-1/R4-6(_)), and Open Space (OS1) Zone

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to subsection 34(17) of the Planning Act, no further notice be given;

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

  • the requested amendment is consistent with the PPS 2024;

  • the requested amendment would permit development that is considered appropriate and compatible with the future land uses surrounding the subject lands. (3.5/15/PEC)

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lehman

That item 9, clause 3.5, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

Item 9, clause 3.5, as amended, reads as follows:

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Sifton Properties Limited relating to the property located at 1511 Clarke Road (Caverhill West):

a) the proposed by-law, as appended to the Council Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council Meeting to be held on October 14, 2025, to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan, to:

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

ii) ADD a new Specific Policy to the Neighbourhoods Place Type, applicable to the subject lands identified as Block 5 on the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision, to permit an apartment building to a maximum height of 30 metres or 8 storeys; and ADD the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas; and,

iii) ADD a new Specific Policy to the Neighbourhoods Place Type, applicable to the subject lands identified as Blocks 10, 11 and 12 and the remnant lands owned by the applicant on the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision, to permit triplexes, four plexes, stacked townhomes, apartments, emergency care establishments, rooming houses, senior citizen apartment buildings, mixed-use buildings and small-scale community facilities. Apartment buildings, senior citizen apartment buildings and mixed-use buildings shall be permitted to a maximum height of 40 meters or 10 storeys; and ADD the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas.

b) the proposed by-law, as appended to the Council Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 14, 2025, to amend the Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Urban Reserve (UR3) Zone and Environmental Review (ER) Zone, TO Holding Residential Special Provision R1, R7, R8, R9 and Business District Commercial Special Provision BDC (h-8R1-16/R7()/R8-4()/R9-7()/BDC()), Holding Residential Special Provision R7, R8, R9 and Business District Commercial BDC Special Provision (h-8R7()/R8-4()/R9-7()/BDC()), Holding Residential Special Provision R7, R8, R9 (h-8R7()/R8-7()/R9-7(_)), Residential Special Provision R5, R6, R7, R8 and Neighbourhood Facility (h-8R5-7()/R6-5()/R7()/R8-4()/R9-7()/NF), Holding Residential Special Provision R5, R6 and R8(h-8*R5-7()/R6-5()R8-4()), Residential Special Provision R1, R3 and R4 (R1-1/R3-1/R4-6(_)), and Open Space (OS1) Zone

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to subsection 34(17) of the Planning Act, no further notice be given;

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

  • the requested amendment is consistent with the PPS 2024;

  • the requested amendment would permit development that is considered appropriate and compatible with the future land uses surrounding the subject lands. (3.5/15/PEC)

8.5.11   (3.7) Official Plan Review of The London Plan: Final Industrial Land Needs Assessment, Urban Growth Boundary Review Update, and Process Updates

Motion made by S. Lehman

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

a)    the Land Needs Assessment (Employment Areas) as appended to the staff report dated October 1, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE ADOPTED for use as part of Section 26 Review of The London Plan;

b)    the Draft Urban Growth Boundary Review (Employment Areas) and revised Draft Urban Growth Boundary Review (Community Growth) as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “B” BE RECEIVED;

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

d)    the Draft Privately Initiated Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Application Policies and Guidelines, as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “D”, BE RECEIVED;

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue consultation on the Draft Privately Initiated Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Application Policies and Guidelines with the community, development industry, and local Indigenous communities;

f)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consult with the development industry regarding a revised Natural Heritage System buffer methodology, consistent with Council-adopted Environmental Management Guidelines (2025);

g)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED; and,

h)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to include in the final Official Plan Review of The London Plan: Urban Growth Boundary Review report a summary table of the net developable land area for landowner submissions received in relation to item 3.7 of the Planning and Environment Committee agenda of October 1, 2025;

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

it being further noted that the Civic Administration will continue to work with interested Indigenous communities to explore opportunities for Additions to Reserve for potential new urban reserve lands, which may accommodate Indigenous economic development opportunities or community growth;

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

  • a communication dated September 22, 2025, from S. Levin;

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

  • J. Zaifman, London Home Builders Association;

  • P. Hinde, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.;

  • J. Meocha;

  • P. Masschelein, Sifton Properties Ltd.;

  • P. Makowski, Strik Balinelli Moniz Ltd.;

  • M. Moussa;

  • H. Zaswa;

  • M. Wallace, London Development Institute;

  • J. Peter; and,

  • L. Blumer;

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.

At 5:31 PM, Councillor S. Hillier leaves the meeting.

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the motion be amended by adding a new part i):

i) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to include, as an appendix to the final Official Plan Review of The London Plan: Urban Growth Boundary Review report, mapping of a boundary expansion encompassing 1,054 hectares of developable land, for information purposes.

Motion Failed (5 to 8)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That part b) of the motion be approved.

Motion Passed (10 to 3)

Motion made by S. Lehman

The balance of item 11, clause 3.7, be approved.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Item 11, clause 3.7, reads as follows:

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

a)    the Land Needs Assessment (Employment Areas) as appended to the staff report dated October 1, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE ADOPTED for use as part of Section 26 Review of The London Plan;

b)    the Draft Urban Growth Boundary Review (Employment Areas) and revised Draft Urban Growth Boundary Review (Community Growth) as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “B” BE RECEIVED;

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

d)    the Draft Privately Initiated Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Application Policies and Guidelines, as appended to the above-noted staff report as Appendix “D”, BE RECEIVED;

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue consultation on the Draft Privately Initiated Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Application Policies and Guidelines with the community, development industry, and local Indigenous communities;

f)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consult with the development industry regarding a revised Natural Heritage System buffer methodology, consistent with Council-adopted Environmental Management Guidelines (2025);

g)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED; and,

h)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to include in the final Official Plan Review of The London Plan: Urban Growth Boundary Review report a summary table of the net developable land area for landowner submissions received in relation to item 3.7 of the Planning and Environment Committee agenda of October 1, 2025;

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

it being further noted that the Civic Administration will continue to work with interested Indigenous communities to explore opportunities for Additions to Reserve for potential new urban reserve lands, which may accommodate Indigenous economic development opportunities or community growth;

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

  • a communication dated September 22, 2025, from S. Levin;

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

  • J. Zaifman, London Home Builders Association;

  • P. Hinde, Strik Baldinelli Moniz Ltd.;

  • J. Meocha;

  • P. Masschelein, Sifton Properties Ltd.;

  • P. Makowski, Strik Balinelli Moniz Ltd.;

  • M. Moussa;

  • H. Zaswa;

  • M. Wallace, London Development Institute;

  • J. Peter; and,

  • L. Blumer;

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.

9.   Added Reports

At 5:34 PM, Councillor S. Hillier enters the meeting.

Motion made by C. Rahman

That clause 2 of the 16th Report of Council In Closed Session read as follows:

2. Banking Services Agreement Renewal with the Bank of Nova Scotia

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports and the City Solicitor’s Office, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2026 renewal agreement with the Bank of Nova Scotia:

a)    the report dated October 6, 2025 with respect to the 2026 renewal agreement with the Bank of Nova Scotia BE RECEIVED for legal advice; and

b)    a vote by Council in public session BE CONSIDERED to proceed with a Limited Tendering procurement in accordance with s. 13.3iv) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy

That progress was made with respect to items 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8 as noted on the public agenda, (6.1/12/SPPC), (6.2/15/ICSC), (6.1/14/CPSC), (6.2/14/CPSC), (6.3/14/CPSC), (6.4/14/CPSC) and (6.1/15/PEC).

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

Councillor S. Stevenson enquires with respect to the number of overdose deaths reported as critical incidents in our hubs or supportive housing.  The Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development responds to the enquiry.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 366 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Second Reading of Bill No. 366 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 366 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 371 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Second Reading of Bill No. 371 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 371 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 369 and 379 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 3)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 369 and 379 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 3)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 369 and 379 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 2)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 358 to 378 and including the Added Bill No. 380 BE APPROVED, with the exception of Bill No.’s 360, 361, 366, 369, and 371.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

At 5:45 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair.

At 5:46 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 358 to 378 and including the Added Bill No. 380 BE APPROVED, with the exception of Bill No.’s 360, 361, 366, 369, and 371.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 358 to 378 and including the Added Bill No. 380 BE APPROVED, with the exception of Bill No.’s 360, 361, 366, 369, and 371.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Hillier

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, 0 minutes)

[15:17] Okay, thank you, please be seated. Welcome to the 16th meeting of council. Hope everyone had a nice Thanksgiving day weekend. 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 Adawandran peoples. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area, the two Row Wampum Belt Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, so we’re coming in chain.

[15:50] The Beaver Hunting Grounds Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Nantfan Treaty of 1701, the McKee Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, the Huron track Treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabeck, and the Dish With One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabeck and Haudenosaunee. The three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chippewaas of the Thames First Nation, O’Nida Nation of the Thames, and Muncie Delaware Nation, who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs. The city of London is also committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request to make a request specific to this meeting.

[16:29] Please contact council agenda at London.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. Now we get to have the delightful opportunity to have an O Canada singer present to us. Ben Heffernan is a singer/songwriter. I am producer from London, Ontario. He releases music under the name Oberlin and has amassed hundreds of thousands of streams as a producer on other artists’ work while also performing multiple times a week around London and beyond.

[17:05] Heffernan is set to release his first full-length album as Oberlin as early as 2026. Thanks to support from the Community Arts Investment Program. Please rise and join me in welcoming Ben who will now perform the National Anthem for us. ♪ Canada ♪ ♪ Our home and native land ♪ ♪ True patriot love ♪ ♪ In all of us command ♪ ♪ With glowing hearts we see thee rise ♪ ♪ The true north strong and free ♪ ♪ From far and wide O Canada ♪ ♪ We stand on guard for thee ♪ ♪ God keep our land glorious and free ♪ ♪ O Canada ♪ ♪ We stand on guard for thee stand guard ♪ Okay, the disclosure is of pecuniary interest.

[19:16] I’m looking for any disclosures. Councilor Van Meerbergen. Thank you, Mayor. I’d like to declare a conflict with regard to Jesus for this. It’s nothing to do with daycare on the infrastructure and corporate services committee report. My wife has her own operating daycare and it’s D.

[19:55] Leave it, yeah, 2.5 on the infrastructure and corporate services committee part D. Thank you. There’s one bill related to the childcare piece, which is bill, I think, 366, is that right? Yes, okay. So we got that noted, other declarations, seeing none. I don’t have any recognitions today.

[20:26] I don’t know if members have any. Nope, review of confidential matters because they’re in public, we have none. We have council in closed session. We have eight items for closed session. So I’ll look for a motion to move into closed session. Moved by Councilor Layman, seconded by Councilor Hopkins. Any discussion? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. So, Van Meerbergen.

[21:08] Oh, yes. In the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, we’ll be moving to committee room five. And for the public, we’ll return as soon as we’re done our closed session. Okay, please be seated.

[31:24] Okay, I’ll just, I meant to say this, I’ll just start with all the colleagues know that I did make sure there was some snacks available. I don’t know how long the meeting will go today, but we might look to take a break around pre 30 or so. So just in your minds, think about that. We’ll stop to have a vote, but that’s at the time I’m gonna call for a short break so that everybody can take a moment. Okay, we’re on to item five, which is confirmation and signing of the minutes, our previous meetings. We have the 15th meeting held on September 23rd, 2025. I’ll look for a mover for that.

[31:55] Councilor Van Meerbergen, seconded by Councilor Ferreira. Any discussion on the minutes? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Councilor Van Meerbergen. Oh, vote yes. Building the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[32:39] Okay, we’re on to communications and petitions. So the way that we’ll handle this is everything up to 6.6, including 6.6 has places in the agenda to go to. So we’ll deal with all of those together and then we’ll deal with 6.7 separate. So I’ll look for a mover for 6.1 to 6.6 and it’s basically referral to all those parts of the agenda. Councilor Hillier’s willing to move, seconded by Councilor Cuddy. Any discussion on all of those items? We’ll open that for voting.

[33:35] Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, the next one is from the ombudsman. It’s about closed meeting complaints. There are no violations and no recommendations contained within that report. So all we have to do is receive it. So I’ll look for a motion to receive. Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councilor Palosa. That’s on the floor. Any discussion on that? Deputy Mayor Lewis, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship.

[34:10] I’m just gonna take a brief moment on this one to indicate that there’s not even any recommendations coming from the ombudsman’s office on this. There was nothing done wrong. And I think the piece that I wanna highlight, not just for colleagues, but for the public. When people are talking about quorum concerns, it’s to advance the business of a meeting. Not the Councillors cannot be together outside of Council chambers in a setting, particularly where other people are involved.

[34:44] In this case, an MP’s Chief of Staff, the Mayor’s Chief of Staff, we’re sitting in. It’s about whether or not the advancing of a committee business item is happening. That’s when you get into quorum issues. And you’re talking about, in this particular instance, the impact of federal tariffs. That’s hardly something that would fall under the Planning and Environment Committee mandate. So there wouldn’t be a motion to bring something forward through PEC there that would have been, even in order from the PEC terms of reference. So just sharing that, I mean, obviously, we never know where the complaints come from, but quorum is not something that is a universal, more than two members of Council can’t get together outside of these chambers.

[35:26] So I just thought I would take a moment to address that. And underline, particularly as this wasn’t added, that came, it wasn’t in the agenda itself. So for those who may be watching, the ombudsman not only found nothing wrong happened, but actually didn’t even have any recommendations for implementation in the future. So I hope when folks use the ombudsman’s office in the future, they do so with the thought of whether or not there’s grounds to move forward. ‘Cause that is a public resource that does have a cost to the taxpayer. Okay, any other speakers to this?

[36:01] Seeing none, then that’s, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, the motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, we’re on to motions to which notice is given. There are two letters from colleagues. Just a reminder, these will require leave first to introduce the motion because they were posted on the agenda and notice the motion is given, leave it was 50% of members of Council present for leave to be granted and then after leave is granted any motion, while the motion that is written in the correspondence is put on the floor for consideration.

[36:50] So I’ll turn it over to Deputy Mayor Lewis or Councillor Hopkins, I don’t know who wants to. So you, one of you will put leave on the floor. Okay, Councillor Hopkins, so you can rise and move leave for this. And leave is not debatable. So we just basically move right to vote. So, okay, so that’s, so the leave is on the floor. There’s no debate. I’m just gonna open that for voting. So if you grant leave, then the Councillors can introduce the motion.

[37:35] Voting the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, with leave granted, I’m not sure which of you would like to put the motion on the floor. Okay, Councillor Hopkins is willing to move. So if you want to rise since you’re moving a motion and if you’d like, you could speak to it. Deputy Mayor Lewis will second. Okay. Yes, I’d like to put the motion on. I do have a seconder and Deputy Mayor Lewis and I want to thank Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councillor Frank for bringing this forward at AMO. In September, we had a fulsome debate at the board. And we know that this is a tool for municipalities to keep our neighborhoods safe.

[38:13] It works and AMO will be putting forward a submission when the bill is debated. I do want to also just make a comment on the work that I have seen by staff. Safety in our neighborhoods is one of the most emails I get as a city Councillor, even for the past 11 years. Keeping our neighborhoods safe is really important.

[38:48] Staff do a great job there. They’re giving us the tools that we need to implement them. Back in the community in the area continues to require these tools. And I want to just say to you, the community that I represent is very vigilant and is very concerned about the safety in their neighborhoods. And one of the things they continue to do is just not to react to accidents that have occurred.

[39:26] We had an accident on Longwoods before Christmas in our neighborhood, but this community continues. And I just want to make a statement that they passed on to me about these speed cameras. They may be the only traffic calming measure available for calming traffic safety on high risk, high volume roads used as emergency routes. Many of these roads have children living on them. I think to me it’s a very reflection and I have as a Councillor representing the community that with the desire to get from A to B as fast as possible, we sometimes forget that there are children living on these roads and this is just one tool.

[40:13] So I’m hoping my colleagues will support this motion and give voice to emails submissions. Thank you. Any other speakers to this? Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship, and I’m gonna echo everything Councillor Hopkins just said. I really appreciate the work that AMO put into this. I know there was a group of mayors who issued a letter independent of this ahead of this being shared with us by AMO. Respectfully, I think that they were overly prescriptive and maybe missed the mark on a couple of things whereas AMO’s calling for an actual discussion and working together with the province to fix this.

[40:59] I think that that’s the right approach. You know, working collaboratively, listening to the best practices that every municipality has. I think London has some, as Councillor Hopkins said, some excellent examples to share ‘cause our staff have done a phenomenal job of implementing this program. We only use it in school zones. The money goes back into road safety improvements. It’s doing exactly what it’s meant to do. We haven’t gone overboard like some municipalities and declared everything in the city a community safety zone. We haven’t gone and gotten 50 or 60 of these cameras.

[41:32] We’re rotating seven through the school zones that we have in our city. We’re being responsible about it, not just in terms of the effort that’s being put out but also in terms of where the revenue that comes back is being directed. And I think that’s a really important factor to keep in mind. So I really wanna applaud the work that AMO has done on this. And I know Councillor Hopkins, you are involved. I’m gonna also thank Councillor Frank who worked on this with us as well. I certainly wanna say that this was a team effort to bring this forward.

[42:03] I know Councillor Frank has been vocal about this in her ward and how it impacts residents. I met with a couple of her constituents actually in the last couple of weeks and listened to their concerns about speed in particular around school zones. So I know it’s legitimate there. Just this morning, when I arrived at the office, we photocopied and turned into a PDF and sent off to our staff another traffic calming petition from my ward, very close to a school where we’ve got pedestrian cut-throughs, mid-block so students are walking mid-block through a neighborhood.

[42:36] It absolutely, I agree with you Councillor Hopkins that this is probably the number one concern I get from residents. The safety around our schools and parks and particularly around our schools, which we know often function as de facto parks after school hours as well. So I think this is a responsible resolution to support. I think there’s discussions to be had. I think that there’s ways to meet the province in the middle on some of these things. Like I said, London’s already doing it. If they wanna dictate that all the revenue goes back into road safety programs, well, we’re already doing that.

[43:09] I think that’s a good best practice to adopt province-wide. If they wanna say only in school zones and we’re not gonna have community safety zones anymore, then tell us what their radius is for school zones and we can follow that rule. We’re already following it in London. Another municipalities can do the same. So I think we have some good best practices to share. I know Councillor Hopkins will continue to share those with her colleagues as she’s at the AMO table. And I hope all of us, when we have our discussions with our local MPPs or with government officials, when we have the opportunity, will point to the program that London has, the implementation we’ve done.

[43:42] Because I actually do believe we have a really good model to address the concerns that the Premier has expressed about some of these situations, while at the same time keeping this tool in the toolbox. We cannot expect put a police officer in every school zone across the city. That’s the least effective way of enforcing, not only from a financial perspective, but a police officer can only stop one car at a time. A speed camera catches everybody speeding through that school zone.

[44:13] So it either punishes everybody for the violation or we get selective and just have an officer pull somebody over. And at the end of the day, I’ve said this publicly and I’m gonna say it again in this chamber because it’s factual and I want it on the public record. A ticket for speeding is not a cash grab. It’s not a tax grab. If you don’t wanna pay it, don’t speed in the school zone. It’s just that simple. Any other speakers, go ahead, Councillor Ploza. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[44:45] Just for committee and the public’s information. I appreciate this coming forward. I did actually coincidentally have a community focused safety meeting last Thursday night with members of ward 12. At first, the conversation was around on a speed enforcement and why do we do hit? I got a ticket and then for the residents for knowing that and the conversation is like, well, what does it do? So just thank you to Ms. Sharon, her team for giving us a briefing note that I had read going into this meeting, which allowed me to tell residents that there is a small buffer if you speed.

[45:22] You can always try going under the limit if you wanna make sure you don’t get a ticket, but that we’ve had the mobile units and operated over around 50 school zones, helping neighbors who raise these concerns, improve speed limit compliance has been observed with an average speed reduction of 5.7 kilometers per hour while the units were operational. And after they removed 3.6 kilometer per hour, reduction still, letting residents know that that money from those who speed, who got ticketed, come back into the city through the automated enforcement reserve fund.

[45:56] And it’s put out to do things that we need done for additional traffic calming, pavement markings, pedestrian crossovers. If this funding leaves, I know the government will have a new program we can have administrative costs for and start applying for. This money already here is coming back into our community to do the things. When this funding is removed, we will need to find new budget money to do these things. And if they still want enforcement, there’s gonna be increased enforcement costs for police across the board as every neighborhood and every word council will want some help in their wards. So the conversation then shifted at the community safety meeting of the monies here and it’s being operationalized here and they would like to keep it.

[46:40] Councilor Trossa. Just to briefly say that I’m not gonna add much to the deputy mayor, I said, we ruin everything here. I think we need to expand this. If anything, that’s not on the table now. That could be taken up at a different committee. But I’m persistently hearing from residents in my ward, they want more of these and how come we don’t have more of them? So I think that’s something that we’re gonna need to look at in the future.

[47:11] No amendment here ‘cause I’m thrilled with the wording of the motion. And thanks so much to AMO for taking a really positive positive leadership on this. And I think it was a very, very thorough statement and I’m just very pleased that we’re going to be supporting this. Thank you. Councilor McAllister. Thank you through the mayor. Just wanna echo the thanks that have already been said to the mayor, Deputy Mayor, Councilor Hobb, Councilor Frank for bringing this forward.

[47:47] I too often hear from my constituents in terms of speeding, especially in school zones, appreciate the rotation we have and trying to get these throughout the city ‘cause I know we all have issues in terms of speeding in school zones. I do just in terms of conversations I’ve already had. I just wanna express that a lot of folks are concerned in terms of what the province is doing with removing these. I think this is kind of a reckless policy decision because I think it sets them up for cherry picking of traffic laws, especially very much along the lines of rules for the, but not for me kind of attitude that I’m hearing and that the province I think is really running the risk at giving people license to break the law in many respects.

[48:33] And if we give too much leeway on something like this, I think it’s gonna be difficult in terms of future traffic enforcement. So I just wanna again say thank you to everyone who’s involved with this, appreciate AMO bringing this up as well, and this is definitely an issue that a lot of lenders care about and I definitely think that we should keep these cameras. Thank you. I have myself on the list, Max. So I’ll turn it over to Deputy Roy Lewis to chair. I will take the chair and I recognize Mayor Morgan. Yeah, I’ll be brief on this. Happy to have signed this letter. I will say I did not sign the letter that other mayoral colleagues put together.

[49:05] I actually don’t support the idea of giving people warnings in school zones that was in that letter. And I think from time to time, there’s different merits of different things. Sometimes we sign on to letters together. Both myself and Mayor Sutcliffe, for example, decided to support resolutions at their local councils instead because neither one of us were satisfied with the final language of the letter. That being said, I think the program’s quite successful here in the city of London. I think that the way we structured it is done very well. There are a number of other municipalities who do it this way and focus on school zones, return the minimal amount of revenue generated back into the road safety budget.

[49:43] And I think that’s an appropriate way to go. Now, I don’t know if the province will engage in further discussions on this. I’m not sure if they’re willing to make changes to the program regardless of what happens. You know what, regardless of whether there’s speed enforcement, you know, the one thing the public can do. And all you have to do is just walk in front of one of the schools during drop off and pickup and see the amount of kids and parents, people walking and realize the responsible thing to do is just just slow down the school zones. You don’t need traffic enforcement. You don’t need to speed limit sign. You don’t need any of that. We could just all drive a little slower school zones. I hope the program is retained for those who don’t listen to that.

[50:18] But I think we can all take it upon ourselves to just drive responsibly, particularly in areas where children are involved. So happy to support the letter with my signature. Thanks for the counselors for bringing it forward. Thank you Mayor Morgan. I will return the chair to you. I have no other speakers at this time. Okay, I don’t have any other speakers either. So this is duly moved and seconded. We’ll open that for voting. Posing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[51:04] Okay, next is the second submission on, motion switch notice is given. This one is from Council Frank. So I’ll see if you’d like to move, leave. Okay, and you have a seconder for leave. Look for a seconder for leave for Councilor Frank. Councilor Palosa. Okay, so this is leave to introduce some motion as articulated in Council Frank’s letter. Leave is not debatable. So we’ll move to the voting on motion for leave. Posing the vote, motion fails seven to eight.

[51:52] Okay, so unfortunately you don’t have leave to bring forward that motion. So we’ll move on to the next part of the agenda. So we’re on to reports. We’re gonna start with the 12th report of SPPC. This was a three item report and I’ll turn it over to Deputy Mayor Lewis to present the report. Thank you, Your Worship. I am not aware of any colleagues wishing to vote separately on items. So I’m prepared to put the entire report on the floor.

[52:27] Okay, anybody like anything dealt with separately? Councilor, oh no, just a comment. Okay, anything separate? Okay, seeing none, then that’s on the floor. And now look for speakers list. Councilor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you, I spoke at committee, but I just wanted to say again, thank you to staff on this and for the consultation with the old East Village BIA and with me, very happy to see this uncertainty resolved. The neighborhood knows now what to expect and the free parking is really a benefit to those who use those parking lots right now.

[53:03] And it’s a little bit of help that is much appreciated. So thank you very much. Any other speakers? This is the entire SPPC report. Okay, seeing none, then we’ll open that for voting. Opposing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[53:45] All right, next we have the 15th report of Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee. I’ll turn it over to Councilor Raman to present. Thank you, I’d like to present the 15th report of Infrastructure and Corporate Services. I’ve been asked to pull two items so far. That is the mid-year operating budget monitoring report, item four and item eight, particularly part D for a separate vote. And other than that, I’m not aware of anything else to pull. Okay, would anybody else like anything beyond that pulled separately? Seeing none, go ahead Councilor.

[54:18] Thank you, I will craft a motion with items one, two, three, five, six and seven. Okay, Chair, puts one, two, three, five, six, seven on the floor, any discussion on those matters? All right, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Sign the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[55:00] Thank you, I will look to put item four, 2.3, which is the 2025 mid-year operating budget monitoring report. We had quite a fulsome discussion at committee about this particular report. Okay, that’s on the floor. I’ll look for any discussion on that. Go ahead, Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, I just, I had this pulled because I’m gonna be voting against it. And the reason is that there’s $10.6 million that we’re using from the property tax 2025 projected surplus for temporary homeless services.

[55:35] And the issue that I have is when it comes, three million of that was part of the budget, which we did not move in 2025. And it’s, they’re temporary, but they’re likely to be ongoing, right? In other cities who’ve done these micro shelters, they have continued on. Kitchener just extended theirs to 2030 and for as long as it’s needed. I’m concerned on behalf of the taxpayers who plead with me about their own inability to make ends meet month after month.

[56:09] And they’re asking us to please give them some relief and not make them homeless in trying to address the urgent needs of some on our streets. So I understand that this is showing up in two different places today, but I’m gonna vote no here because although it is a surplus, it’s not a real surplus in the sense that everything’s going fine. We have money for everything and there’s money left over. This is just an amount that is there that is needed in so many different ways, needed for infrastructure gap, needed to address the large debts that are coming in the next term of council, needed for reprieve for people who are really struggling to make their property tax payments, people who own their homes but are on a fixed income and are really struggling with the increasing costs.

[57:00] We’ve also, there’s just a lot of need out there and so out of principle for that, I’m gonna be voting no on this. Okay, other speakers, okay. Seeing none, then we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Thank you, I’ll look to put item eight on the floor, which was 2.5 and noting that Councilor Van Mirberg and has declared a conflict on part D.

[57:46] Yes, and we’re gonna do part D first, Councilor. So we’ll do just the part D first and I’ll have the chair put that on the floor and then we’ll do the rest of it afterwards. Thank you, I’ll look to put part D on the floor. Okay, so part D is on the floor, any discussion on part D? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Building the vote, motion carries 14 to zero with one recuse.

[58:28] Thank you, I’ll look to put the rest of D, or eight, sorry, on the floor. Perfect, the rest is now on the floor. Any comments, we’ll open that for voting. Building the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Good. Thank you, that concludes my report. Great, thank you very much.

[59:01] Onto the 14th report of Community Protective Services Committee. I’ll turn it over to the chair to present that report. Thank you, Mayor. I have some fold requests for this report. Four or five of them, so half the report has been pulled. So I’m pleased to report the 14th report of the Community Protective Services Committee. I have pull requests for item three. That’s the bike parking implementation plan. Item four, that’s the Green Bin and bi-weekly garbage collection program. That’s item seven, proposed temporary warming, center framework, item nine, health and homelessness, total community system response, research and evaluation report and item 10, the adequate and suitable cooling by-law and maximum temperature amendments to the AMPS by-law A54.

[59:49] So I’m willing to put item one, two, five, six, eight and 11 on the floor. Actually, I haven’t had any other pull requests. So if there’s any other, just let me know. But I’d be willing to put those items on if there’s not. Sure, so right now the chair’s willing to put one, two, five, six, eight and 11. Anybody like any of those dealt with separately? No, okay, so the chair moves those. Thank you, any discussion on those? Go ahead.

[1:00:23] Thank you, worship, just very briefly on item eight, the overnight winter parking change policy. I just wanna say, I think this is a move in the right direction, you know, as we continue to look at changing demographics, changing family realities, full of our driveway parking as we saw even in St. Thomas hasn’t really been a viable option, but on street parking, we already have the roads paved. So, you know, while people are considering whether or not they might look for a driveway widening ‘cause an adult child is living at home or a parent is coming to live with them in their retirement and whether our bylaws will even allow for that driveway widening at this point, something is on staff’s agenda to come back to Peck with at a later date.

[1:01:07] I think the fact that we have these overnight parking options available to people on the streets is a good use of that space. We know that on street parking also serves as a passive traffic calming tool. We just have a long conversation about that a couple of items ago. And so long as we have the opportunity to prohibit the parking when we have to because of extreme winter events so that the road crews can do the proper cleanup, then I think we’re going a step in the right direction. I also support the cost at $5 a night after the first 15. I think when you look at what people pay for an extra parking stall in an apartment building or a parking stall at their place of work, particularly in the core, we are still offering an extremely low rate for people to park for a month, even if they have to park all 30 days on the street versus what they would be paying if they were in a private lot where they were renting a stall for a month.

[1:02:01] So I think there is a component for this where it says it is your responsibility to find an on a permanent solution at some point. So you’re going to have to pay to park, but it does allow for us to accommodate those and still avoid the front yard parking and the parallel parking on the boulevard and those other things, which are certainly less safe and less attractive in the neighborhoods that generate some complaints as well. So I appreciate the work staff put into this. I appreciate Councilor Pribble bringing the motion forward and getting it through committee. I mean, this is one of the first things I worked on when I was first elected and we got a little change back then.

[1:02:35] We’re making another change now. And I think it’s a step in the right direction. Okay, any other speakers to this? Let’s go ahead, Councilor Plaza. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A question through you to staff, as I’ve had mixed feedback with this one from residents, this being the Winter Overnight Parking Policy Change. With the change of the parking permit reduction from the proposed $15 that was in the staff report to the committee recommendation coming out of five, can I hear what the cost recovery is going to look like for this program?

[1:03:11] I know we’re guessing what it’s going to look like, but just realizing that whenever there’s someone, there’s going to be the backside technology end to set it up and monitor it, plus time to go out and actually see if people have registered properly for it, plus probably some public engagement about this program and how to use it. So just three to staff of, if we’re looking to see if this is going to pay for itself or if we’re going to be subsidizing street parking. I have three to work, go ahead. Three to worship. So we haven’t done a lot of detail.

[1:03:44] However, I can note that there hasn’t been a fee historically and we have been monitoring this program and allowing for this for some time. So we do have staff available that have been doing this type of work in the past, so we are optimistic that it will be a self-financeing program, but we will be reporting back after the first year to let you know how it’s going and just ensure that’s appropriate. Great. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you to Mr. Mathers for that. For me, I want to make sure that this program pays for itself, for the mixed feedback from residents.

[1:04:20] Some have said I just have so many cars, for whatever reason, I rotate them through by amount of passes, I don’t want a ticket, but I’m willing to pay a nominal fee for parking. I also have residents saying some people just have so many cars that are parked in front of my house all the time. I can never get to a parking space from my own home ‘cause somebody else is using it and I actually look forward to winter and having the street cleared. So feedback in both directions, so looking forward to see where this comes from. Any other speakers to this?

[1:04:59] Seeing none, we’ll open this for voting. Housing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Go ahead, thank you. Okay, that, I’ll put item three, that’s 2.4 of the report, the bike parking implementation plan 2025-2029. Okay, that’s on the floor. I’ll look for any speakers.

[1:05:31] Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you again. I pulled this one ‘cause I’m gonna be voting no and it’s more, really more of a protest vote than it is actually against the bike parking. We had downtown parking as part of our strategic plan. It’s something we’ve been talking about for years. It’s what the downtown core says is critical to their success going forward. And so my protest is we’re moving ahead with bike parking, with no discussion, nothing in our strategic plan, around addressing the urgent need that we have there. Any other speakers to this one?

[1:06:09] Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to two. Okay, go ahead, Chair. Thank you. Okay, the next item, item four, 2.5 of the report, that’s part two, green, vin, and bi-weekly garbage collection program. Next steps, I’ll put that one on the floor.

[1:06:45] Okay, that’s on the floor. I’ll look for any speakers. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you for this one. I have an amendment that I’d like to put forward. I can read it out. Yes, please. So it’ll be bi-i, unless the clerks have a better place to put it. That civic administration be directed to report back with further evaluation and costing of adding weekly garbage pickup during the July, August months. Yeah, just so you know, for colleagues there, the clerks are just gonna add this as a whole new part.

[1:07:18] So just be added as a new part to the overall motion. So I’ll look for a seconder for that. That’s a ramen, okay, do you wanna speak to that? I believe there’s an amendment coming to this one. So for efficiency, I’ll wait. Sure, okay. So the amendments on the floor. So if you wanna amend the amendment, as well, now is the time. Is that you, Councillor Vamever, can go ahead. Yeah, I’d like to move an amendment that adds, that staff look at the feasibility of including diapers in the green bin program, and that would be all diapers.

[1:07:59] Coddlers, babies, adults, that’s a very important, add additional piece to our program. So I’ll move that. Do they need to be two separate amendments?

[1:08:44] Yeah, that’s what I’m just talking about. So Councillor, not that you can’t make that amendment, but I don’t think that’s an amendment to the amendment. This is about garbage, and during the months of July and August, yours is certainly related to the item at the committee, but after this amendment is dealt with, you could add that as an amendment because it’s really about the green bin recycling program and not the garbage collection piece. So, ‘cause I just wanna put colleagues in this situation, there might not be support of one, there might be support of the other. If we stick them together, that’s tricky to number. Yeah, so I’ll come to you after this amendment’s dealt with, whether it passes or fails, to make this particular amendment to the main motion, okay?

[1:09:22] All right, okay, so we’ll go back to the, so the amendment is moved and seconded. Okay, go ahead. Thanks, so I will go ahead and see why I’m bringing this. There’s been a lot of request for relief during the summer months, particularly in neighborhoods where they don’t have garages, or they have a lot of rentals where people just aren’t as familiar or not as committed to the green bin use. And so, they’re having a lot of issues there, a lot of issues with health and safety, with rats and with concerning odors and that kind of thing.

[1:09:58] So, the original thing they looked at was made August, which was a million to one and a half million a year, if I recall. So, this is a reduced request around July and August, so for the really, really hot months. And there was a four to $5 million surplus in garbage. So, not to say that that will be happening every year, but I really think that we need to start giving Londoners what they’re wanting as well. So, there’s a need for this in certain areas. There’s a desire for it.

[1:10:29] It’s considered a basic municipal service that people want, and for me anyway, I need to start saying yes to some of the things that people pay their taxes for, and not always some of these other more urgent issues or homelessness and that kind of thing. If we’ve got the money for that, then why do we not have the money to provide a basic service to people who really do struggle during the heat of the summer? So, I’m hoping to have my colleagues support on this. This isn’t a go ahead to do it. It’s a request for further costing and evaluation to be brought back to us.

[1:11:03] So, it’s not a commitment at this point. Okay, I have Deputy Mayor Lewis, Councillor Ramen and Councillor Ferreira, who are on the speakers, let’s go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. So, first through you, a question to staff, Ms. Shearer or one of her team. Can staff explain the difference between what a property tax rate payer pays through their property taxes for garbage collection, and an increase in the surplus resulting from increased tipping fees? Go ahead.

[1:11:36] Thank you, Your Worship. I’ll certainly do my best. The taxpayer rent rate funded tax garbage collection is based on biweekly garbage pickup and weekly green bin and recycling pickup. The tipping fees are variable depending on levels of various types of economic activity within the city of London. It includes things like the institutional, commercial and industrial sector. It can include a lot of worker on construction and demolitions. So, they are quite separate funds. The surplus that we have had in our waste management operations has been related to that commercial tipping. It is not something we anticipate sustaining.

[1:12:11] We also are earmarking some of that for permanent reduction this year as part of the budget debate. And the remainder we are watching in order to ensure that we continue to be able to deliver the blue bin service that is expected by Londoners in light of some potential changes from the provincial legislation. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor. Thank you, so I just think it’s important to delineate, we’re not talking about a surplus as a result of property taxes. We’re talking about a surplus from tipping fees generated by commercial activity. I absolutely will not support this amendment.

[1:12:46] We, to imagine trying to staff up for extra garbage staff for eight weeks of the year, the extra capital costs for trucks because they are our separate trucks that was outlined in previous reports to us. So, we would need to have a capital outlay, we would need to have a temporary staffing plan. We struggle as it is to get all of these seasonal workers that we need every year for parks and recreation and road operations. And those are up to 26 weeks. I think folks really need to question how they think we’re going to find employees to fill these roles for eight weeks.

[1:13:27] We also know from lessons learned and other municipalities that weekly garbage pickup directly correlates to a reduction in green bin use. There is nothing aside from pet waste and diapers that has any reason to be going in the garbage that’s creating odor and smell during the summer. It can go in the green bin. That includes bones from meat, eggshells, moldy cheese, although I think it’s a crime to let cheese get moldy, you should eat it all before it gets that way.

[1:14:00] All of that stuff can go in your green bin. There’s no reason to have anything stinky in your black bag garbage other than your pet waste, which we’re exploring a pilot project to see if we can roll that in. And diapers, which for the overwhelming majority of Londoners, and I’m not saying everyone, but the overwhelming majority of Londoners is often a temporary situation ‘cause children age out of diapers. So from that perspective to suggest that, especially when we just heard on the operating surplus side, we have all of these needs that garbage for eight weeks is the most pressing need and best use of our funds.

[1:14:41] I don’t need staff to go and do a report to tell me this is going to be a significant cost increase. And it is going to present a significant labor challenge. So I’m a note, and to me, it comes back to, we need to hit the 60% diversion target. We need people using their green bins. We should not be providing a disincentive to use the green bins. Councilor Rama next. Thank you and through you. So I second this motion because I do think it’s helpful to have information to give back to residents.

[1:15:15] I hear this quite often in the summer. I receive a lot of calls about the July and August months. What do I do with the increased garbage with especially large families, especially families with infants and young kids? These are concerns that we’re hearing from lenders. So be able to have the information to say to somebody, this is how much it costs to do what you’re asking for is powerful. And it’s something that we should want to empower people to understand what’s the cost of doing something this way versus another.

[1:15:47] So for me, that’s why I supported this motion. I will say it’s not a conversation to me about the and-ors. At this point, it’s about getting that information and getting it back to people. In my ward in particular, one of the things we’re seeing is we’re seeing a lot of dumping in new residential subdivisions because people are throwing their garbage instead of putting it into the regular collection. They’re throwing it into empty lots and they’re throwing it into areas where they think a developer is going to assume that cost.

[1:16:22] What we’re seeing is the developer is assuming that cost. And so they’re paying more. And I’ve met with multiple developers that are paying more for garbage removal on their sites because residents are taking that garbage to their sites and instead of putting it in the regular cycle. So I do think that there’s opportunity for growth. We have to be willing to have that conversation. I will also say that I’m not looking to take away the Greenman program. I’m not looking to not enhance that program, but I am looking to have a conversation that shows Londoners there are additional costs this and here’s what we’ve costed it out to be.

[1:17:02] Councilor Ferrer. Thank you, Mayor. Many of the comments I was gonna make was already said by the Deputy Mayor. I guess I would just add to that. And it would be a big point that he brought up would be two months out of the year or eight weeks out of the year and the costs that we’re gonna be incurring for that. The capital costs for new trucks, which I know we would have to buy the cost for a more personnel to actually do the operation itself. For two months out of the year, it doesn’t seem worth it for me. On top of that, I would note you do see our diversion rates with the Greenman program are seeing success.

[1:17:38] We see diversion rates for the curbside increased to 60% up from 51 last year for the year prior. Residential overall, 52% in 2024, that’s up 45% and garbage has been down comparatively speaking with the same year as well. So we already see some good uptake on this. If this is a conversation that we do need to have, I think it’s a little premature right now because we do need to have some time for London at large to still continue to ease into the program. But the numbers are already showing success. So I wouldn’t be supportive of the motion as it is for this amendment anyways, as it is right now.

[1:18:19] Okay, other speakers to the amendment. Oh, go ahead, Councilor Plosa and then Councilor McAllister. Thank you. I appreciate the desire of looking to address an issue. I just don’t believe this is the issue. Stinky diapers for anyone of any age, yes. Sometimes it just comes down to different securing other bags separately for the odor control, odor issues during those months of the year.

[1:18:54] I’ll note that if someone’s over the limit, bag tags are readily available across the city for $2 per tag. We’re looking at expanding the green bin program to include pet waste, which for some is a lot. The city also has a three container limit. Each container can be up to 44 pounds. So that’s 132 pounds of garbage that we’re considering allowing per week, which would be the 264 pounds for that two week cycle, which to me in my mind is astronomical, especially for diversion, use the green bins, use your blue boxes of looking and allowing that weight limit is quite extensive.

[1:19:39] I know in more 12, some of my issues focus around the bulky item pickup, which residents are adjusting to, which will help us some of the dumping as I work with staff and some residents to address their local concerns. Also the city having waste pickup information in a multitude of languages. I know will help some of my residents so working with staff as well to get all the different languages out to different neighborhoods and their families just to help them disseminate that knowledge and understand it better. So working for those means versus just widening pickup. I’m not interested this time.

[1:20:11] Thank you. Councillor McAllister. Thank you and to the mayor. Also appreciate this discussion. I think it’s an important one. And I will say I found this summer interesting in that to the Councillor Stevenson’s comments about rats. I’m not sure who on staff might be able to address this, but I did find this was a particularly bad summer for those kind of complaints. But in terms of what I’ve been able to see through my site visits, I think this actually has more to do with maybe a property standards issue. A lot of these were dumpsters that were improperly secured.

[1:20:46] A lot of them are townhouse sites, apartment buildings. And I also noticed, obviously that increased with illegal dumping as well. So I’m not sure if staff can maybe address that, but those are what I’ve noticed in terms of where that issue might be originating from. But I’m just curious if staff have heard some more concerns. That’s right, Mayor Bergen. Oh, sorry, we’ll get the answer to the question. Then we’ll go to Councillor Avergen, but only after you’re done all your comments, so go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship.

[1:21:17] I will not pretend to be a professional rodentologist if that is a thing. But we certainly have heard from some of our folks working in both waste collection and in parks, that it has been a bit of an unusual active rat population this year. I don’t know exactly why that might be. We certainly are happy to provide more information about how to well secure any sort of waste, including your blue bin, because the smell of food residue can be quite attractive even when no food or waste is present. So we’re happy to put out some information in that respect, certainly it’s something we monitor, and on the property standard side, I conferred very quickly with Mr. May, there isn’t, he didn’t have any data to back that up, but anecdotally, yes, we have heard that from some of our own teams as well.

[1:21:56] Go ahead, Councillor McAllister. Thank you, and appreciate the answer from staff. Yeah, and I do think this is an important discussion to have. I think as we roll out, obviously there’s a few pilot projects that are still in the works with this, looking at, especially with townhouse complex apartment buildings. I think those are the concerns we need to address with those programs, because that’s where I’ve seen a lot of the problems originating from. I think we obviously need to have those conversations in terms of the property managers, making sure these sites are secure. Yeah, ‘cause I have noticed the increase with the rat population, but I think that’s something that we need to address maybe as a separate topic, and that’s something I’m happy to discuss at CAPS, but at this point in time, I’m not really late to move forward with this, but still an important discussion to have, thank you.

[1:22:38] Okay, now, Councillor, Mayor, we’re gonna go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. Well, I think we all agree that garbage collection and the garbage system is foundational to the property tax, foundational to being funded by the property tax. It’s something that we all rely on. It’s something that we all want to know that it’s working at its fullest capacity and its best capacity. I mean, it’s just a fact that in the summertime, particularly July and August, it’s very rancid with garbage.

[1:23:18] I mean, who among us has not had explosive odors that emerge in the heat, in the humidity, and there are some things that tide just doesn’t get out. There are some things that you don’t want even to put in your washing machine. So where do these clothes or other items end up in the garbage and they smell? So if we can get it picked up so much the better. So this is just a report to come back to us to see the feasibility of this proposal.

[1:23:56] I have to agree with others. This is one of the main complaints I certainly get and have gotten for years and years is making sure that our garbage system is working at its peak. And so I will be supporting this motion. Thank you, Mayor. Any other speakers to this amendment? Okay, oh, go ahead, Councillor Layman. Thank you, so thanks for the debate. I was more inclined to support this because I hear similar concerns from my constituents until the Councillor and Mayor Bergen indicate his possible amendment regarding diapers.

[1:24:45] I hear we’re looking at pet waste as well. ‘Cause quite frankly, that’s where I get the biggest concerns from. Those two things in the summertime. So I’m not inclined at this time to support this. I’m hoping that the next motion which I will support amendment to look at diapers. And if we can find a solution for diapers and pet waste, then so be it ‘cause I think that will alleviate some of these other concerns. If we can’t, then I want to go back to this discussion so that we address this problem once and for all.

[1:25:23] Thank you. Okay, any other speakers to this amendment? Okay, so this is on the amendment about the, not Councillor Mayonnaise, but just Councillor Stevenson’s and Councillor Robinson’s amendment about weekly garbage collection, getting information on that for July and August months. Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion fails four to 11.

[1:26:02] Okay, Councillor Mayonnaise, Mayor Bergen, you had an additional amendment. Thank you, Mayor. As mentioned earlier, we’d like to propose an additional amendment. We could call this 8.34(b)(3) that civic administration be directed to report back with further evaluation and costing of adding diapers to the weekly green bin pickup.

[1:26:39] Can I now speak to this? Just give me one sec. So it wasn’t quite how we had worded it. So Councillor, I just want to land this to the right spot. So B is like complete an implementation plan for the pilot of pet waste.

[1:27:23] So that’s kind of got a lot of detail to it. You’re asking about, I think just the feasibility of diaper waste and green bins at this time, right? To get a report back before we make a decision to do it. So I think this seems like, we’ll just make this a whole separate item so we don’t mix those together. And because people may, we add it into that and then people like one but not the other, then I’m going to get asked to separate them later anyways. So we’ll make this a whole separate one. And I don’t know if you’re okay with the language of the kind of captures that is civic administration be directed to report back to the community and protective services committee on the feasibility of including diaper waste and agreement program.

[1:27:59] That would be logistics costs. All the small hundreds of feasibility would be captured by that. You’re willing to second? Or I’m going to need a second or at some point. Okay, Councillor Layman, sorry, go ahead. Is this a committee point of order thing? Go ahead. Thanks, Mayor. I was just trying to get on the speakers list for that one. For sure, we’ll get you on the speaker. And I’ll do a point of order. Okay, what’s the point of order?

[1:28:30] Thank you. I know this conversation has come up before at committee regarding what materials are available to be in the bin. I know part D of staff’s recommendation was that nothing else. No other materials be collected in agreement this time. Was part of that staff report already looking at diapers? Just when staff brought this report, did they already consider diapers? Just in that case, the report is already done and would need really specific direction on the motion on the floor. Good point of order.

[1:29:05] Let me just, let me just get an answer to that. So for our staff, my question is in D where the committee has directed take no action and expanding the materials collected in the agreement program at this time was diapers considered in that assessment and is captured in that take no action or not. Go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. We have considered previously the inclusion of disposable incontinence products, diapers and menstrual products in the design of the program based on feedback from other municipalities and the challenges those present in the end stream of actually processing the waste.

[1:29:43] We had recommended not pursuing an update to that information. Should you wish to have that update? The work is not done and we would need to provide that work to you sometime in the new year. All right, so based on that and advice from the clerks, I’m gonna say you need to defeat D first and then you can add your amendment because based on that answer, it’s kind of captured in D that we’re not looking at other materials.

[1:30:19] So if you did feet D, then you could put a new D on to say, we’re gonna look into diapers. So the order here will be and I can vote on D first so that you’ll have that opportunity before we get to the rest of it. But I think that’s the procedurally correct way to go given I agree with the point of order that that’s essentially contained within that piece. So give me a sec to work out some logistics here. Okay, so I’m just gonna try to run the meeting as efficiently as possible.

[1:31:25] I know technically we could just continue to debate on the main motion, but I think procedurally, if no one objects, I’d like to address D now. If D gets upheld, the amendment is out of order anyways. If D gets defeated, the amendment can be on, we can debate the amendment. And then you’d still have the chance to debate the whole as amended motion. So everybody still gets a chance to speak, but if we can kind of address this now, I think it’ll be the quickest possible way to move through the decisions counselors wanna make. No objections to that. That means what I wanna do is I wanna vote on D now to see if D’s upheld or not, okay?

[1:32:02] Everybody knows if it is upheld, then we’re not having a conversation about diapers today. If it isn’t, trust me, I’ve dealt with diapers since like 2007. But if it is defeated, then I would let Councillor van Mereberg and go and put his amendment on the floor. We would debate the amendment if it passes, it would be part of an as amended motion if it didn’t, then we move on, and there’s no D. Is that a question or do you want it to speak? It’s a question.

[1:32:33] Yes. Do you want to do it, Mayor? Go ahead. If the amendment is defeated, if what happens with D, does it, can we bring it back? No, not. Yeah, so D just says we’re not gonna look into this anymore, right? So if we defeat that, that means we’re looking into some things. The amendment can come back and say, one of the things we’re gonna look into is diapers. That doesn’t mean we have to look into everything else, but it would still, the ability to look into it without reconsideration would still be there. But it doesn’t mean we have to look into a whole bunch of different things.

[1:33:08] So D is basically Council’s way of saying, we’re not looking into anything else for 12 months because it’s basically a decided matter of Council. So defeating D doesn’t have any harm, I shouldn’t say any harm. If Council wants to not look into things, they have the right to do so, but doesn’t preclude us from looking into things in the future. It also doesn’t compel us to look into things in the future, except for if the amendment passes to look into the very specific thing. So if D is defeated, and then Council of Mayor Bergen’s motion is defeated, we don’t need to do anything additional, but Committee would have the right to do something additional without reconsideration from Council.

[1:33:45] Okay, I’m gonna get back. So respectfully your worship. Now I have to call the point of order. Okay, and I hate to get into the procedural weeds here. And I would respectfully remind colleagues, this is why it’s good to circulate things in advance so that we can get these procedural kinks worked out ahead of time. At this time, I think it would be appropriate, Councilor Van Mirberg and wanted to amend D to direct staff to look into something. Then we can decide on whether we’re amending it or not. And if not, then D stands as the not doing anything else. The amendment would be in order to clause D because it would change the intent of clause D.

[1:34:24] And it would allow Council to discuss the amendment without having to defeat D first and potentially leave us with no clause D. So I’m gonna call that a point of order. And I’m gonna say I disagree. Doing something is completely contrary to the Committee’s recommendation of not looking into anything further. So an amendment wouldn’t be in order because it would be absolutely contrary to looking into something specifically. So I stand by, D needs to be defeated in order to look into something ‘cause the Committee has said very clearly in D that they’re not going to look into further materials, expanding material collection in the Greenman program at this time.

[1:35:06] So you gotta defeat that if you want to look at expanding materials collected in the Greenman program at this time. So I’m gonna say it’s contrary. You can challenge me and we can— Then I’m gonna challenge the chair. Okay. And that’s fine. It’s a decision making mechanism I take no offense. So the way that this works is, is the ruling of the chair sustained.

[1:35:39] So if you vote yes, my interpretation is correct. If you vote no, the opposite interpretation is correct. My interpretation is you cannot amend D, you have to defeat it. So if you vote yes, then we’re not amending D, we’re gonna have to defeat it. If you vote no, D can be amended. That’s how it works, okay? It’s not debatable. I don’t think there’s a question right now. Question but the process sure is to make sure everybody’s voting properly.

[1:36:12] Thank you, Mayor. So just further to what the Deputy Mayor is saying and what you have just said, we will have a chance, ‘cause I do see that this is a clause D, is take no action on expanding the material. So that’s pretty wide. We’re speaking with a specific matter to a potential amendment that’s coming forward. Can we ask or have some debate on D before we vote on D? No, I’ve made a ruling on D. The chair’s been challenged. We have to deal with that right away. And what’s being challenged here is the right of counsel to amend D or not.

[1:36:47] So I say no, Deputy Mayor says yes. You vote yes to upholding my ruling. We’re not amending D. You vote no. We can amend D all you like. So that’s what we’re gonna vote on now. And I’m sure there’ll be lots of chance to debate later, but we’re not, that’s how we’re gonna proceed. So this is not debatable. So the motion is should the ruling of the chair be upheld. We’re gonna put that to the floor now. The vote motion carries 12 to three.

[1:37:31] Okay, so D has to be defeated to add something on, which means we can vote on D now, then Councilor Vamerever is gonna have an amendment. Okay, is everybody okay with that? Okay, we’re gonna vote on D. Like we’re just gonna vote on it. Is that okay? Good, I just don’t want anybody to be surprised when a vote pops up. Okay, we’re gonna vote on D. We’re gonna open D for voting. Using the vote motion fails seven to eight.

[1:38:18] Okay, so D is defeated, which means Councilor Vamerever can, you can actually put an alternative on the floor. So go ahead. So be an amendment to the main motion now, ‘cause there’s no D. So you’re adding a new clause. So we’ll add the same wording that the clerk’s office provided previously, leave that’s motion five, but we’ll just use the same wording, that the motion be amended to include a new part that reads as follows, that civic administration be directed to report back to the community and protective services committee on the feasibility of including diaper waste in the green bin program.

[1:39:02] Okay, move by Councilor Vamerever again, seconded by Councilor Layman. That amendment to the main motions now on the floor, we can debate that. Go ahead, oh, and I’ll invite you if you wanna speak first. Sure, thank you, thank you, Mayor. I think we all know that at various parts of life, diapers are a commodity that are very necessary. And how we deal with that and dispose of it, currently I don’t think meets the test. I get literally dozens of complaints about why diapers are not part of the green bin program.

[1:39:42] As a means to have weekly pickup, instead of having them stew for two weeks before they can go out, and as they pile up, we have to keep in mind that our society, our population is rapidly aging, and a lot of older people are using these products. And we have governments at all levels encouraging to age in place, encouraging to age at home. Well, part of that is to have the diaper access, but also how do you dispose of these diapers?

[1:40:20] So I think it’s the will of our community, and therefore should be our will as a council to reflect that and include an easy weekly system into the green bin program. So this motion asks for a report back. My understanding is there’s at least, I believe, two other municipalities that are also doing this in terms of diapers in the green bin. Perhaps I could ask staff, is that indeed the case?

[1:40:54] I thought I heard previously that there was a couple of municipalities that do include diapers as part of the green bin program. Okay, go ahead. Your mic, Councillor Vameh. Oh, sure. Thank you, Your Worship. I don’t have that information here exactly, but as I recall, Toronto accepts incontinence menstrual products and diapers, and I believe Durham may as well, although that is, I believe, diverted to their waste energy incinerator. Certainly, if this passes, we would include information about what occurs in other municipalities, and I would suggest that if this passes, we should also include a review of disposable menstrual products as well, because they tend to be lumped into the same discussion, generally, in terms of waste management.

[1:41:40] Thank you for that. That’s actually a good point. I mean, we could certainly add that to the motion if that’s necessary, or I think we could just add that in. No. - No menstrual products? No, that would need to be an amendment to your amendment, so. Just be additional, or? No, Councilor, we’re at Council- Just leave it. So, can be added in, but someone needs to move the amendment to add it in, because it’s not in there now. It’s changed in language, it’s on the floor, it’s moved and seconded, it’s in the possession of the committee, so someone I need to move an amendment at some point during the debate, who’s on the speaker’s list, to add that in.

[1:42:24] Okay. - Okay. Thank you, Mayor. Councilor Ferrer. Thank you, Mayor. I don’t necessarily disagree with Councilor Van Mirberg, and I just wanted to know, I believe that staff did have this conversation, we did look into it, so I just wanna not be duplicating any work. So I guess I’ll just take, or not duplicating work, but do in the work again, just in case we’ve done it already. So I do wanna put that question to staff to see what kind of investigation or analysis that we did for this motion.

[1:43:01] Thank you, Your Worship. This was investigated as part of the green bin program design that was brought to Council prior to implementation. At that time, there were concerns about the ability to find a qualified processor, and the impact on both the cost of processing the green bin waste, as well as the end markets for that ultimate product. As you start including these sorts of products into the mix, it does limit your ability to potentially a find a processor who can do the work efficiently at a good cost per ton, as well as to where that can be applied in the future, which right now are generally a primary market for our waste that comes out of green bin after processing is as a fertilizer product.

[1:43:40] Thank you. So logistically, it seems like there’s some challenges there, especially with the fact that I guess some of, some products, some diaper products are not necessarily compostable, and they would have to be disposed of. So I did hear, I think, Council Mayor Berg speaking, or Ms. Shearer speaking about using the incinerator, and we would have to logistically find a way to divert or take out any of the waste products for the diaper products and bring it to the incinerator, or I just wanted to confirm on that part.

[1:44:18] Thank you Your Worship. I believe one other, there’s only two municipalities in Ontario that are accepting these products. One of them is Toronto, and I know they’ve had some challenges with the technical processing of those products. I believe, but I’m not entirely positive, the other one is Durham. Durham has a waste energy incinerator that is, would be able to take this. We do not have a location that this product could go. So where it cannot go through our current contract provider, it would be screened out and taken to W12A, which is an increase in our costs, both in terms of our contracted provider, ultimately the tipage of the landfill, and the handling is more complicated.

[1:44:53] There is generally a reason why most municipalities are not accepting disposable menstrual products and continents products and diapers, and it is simply because of the complexity of that actual item within multiple layers of compostable, plastic, non-compostable, inorganic material, as well as some of the biological concerns. Hey, thank you. I guess I’ll have to think about this one. I do have in my notes that York is another municipality that’s participating in this. So there’s three, I think I saw. York, Durham, and Toronto, as you said.

[1:45:26] So I guess I’ll hear what Council has to say about this, and see just, I just wanna not do more work that we’ve already done already, and especially if we know that it’s not necessarily feasible, that would be the only thing that would be holding me up, but I do hear what Council Admiral Bergin is saying. I think it’s a good question to ask staff, and Council, but I’ll see where this Council discussion goes. I have Councilor Flozanex. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. For me, I’m a strong no on this, just ‘cause you put something into your green bin, it will provide the weekly pickup, but it doesn’t make it magically organic.

[1:46:04] It’s still absorbent gels, chemicals, sometimes fragrance, it’s plastics, and these items are mechanically screened out of that green bin, which means we’re gonna need more employees removing it physically, and then if we don’t have an incinerator, you’ve just heard it still ends up at W12A. So regardless if you put it in your garbage collection or the green bin, should you go with this method, it’s still gonna end up in the landfill. That’s just where it’s gonna go. For me, that’s just where it goes, and it’s gonna add more cost of handling trucks, though serving the purpose of getting it off your doorstep weekly it still doesn’t get diverted, it just goes to the landfill in a different way.

[1:46:53] As I said, I’m not interested in supporting this in any form, but not knowing Council’s desire to support this or not to support this, I would move the amendment at this time should pass, that it also included menstrual products, hoping for no debate on it, but just to wrap it in there as per staff’s recommendation. Okay, and so that’s an amendment to the amendment, I got multiple people willing to second that, and technically we have to do this. There can be a debate on the amendment to the amendment, but I think the Council is trying to make it holistic whether you support it or not.

[1:47:24] So hopefully this can be quick, but that addition of those other products to be looked into with diaper waste is moved and seconded. We will now have a debate on that. I’m not sure if there’s anybody who needs to speak on that. We’ll open that amendment for voting. Seeing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[1:48:23] Okay, I’m gonna use the same mover and seconder for the as amended amendment, but go ahead and meet to you. Thank you, happy to continue my speaking time. Just realizing this also adds more human produced biohazards into the green bin, should it pass, not sure if there’s any different training we would have to do or whether issues that might concern with employees who currently collect this. I know staff had already, when the program was designed, we had full some discussions. The council today to look at the options before us with that information before us.

[1:48:58] I know those reports still exist. Should council members wish to just receive them? So for me, I’m a no, but appreciate staff’s insights and work on this in the past as we move forward. But just for me, you’re just putting in the green bin, but it’s not actually organic and you can get up space for organics to actually be diverted, in which case some people might just stop using the program. Thank you. Okay, Councilor Hopkins, you’re next. Yeah, thank you, your worship. Maybe through you, I just have a quick question, first of all, before I make my comments on the direction of the report back, which is to include diaper waste.

[1:49:36] I wonder exactly what we’re asking for here. So I’m very familiar of other municipalities having the diaper program in their green bin, but the poop is taken out before it goes into the green bin. So I’m just wondering what exactly, what more information are we going to get back here to what we’ve already been given? I just need a little bit of clarification exactly what direction council wants to go here with the diapers.

[1:50:13] I’ll go to our deputy manager. Thank you, your worship. We have provided information as part of the program design for our current green bins. I don’t believe the technology that would allow these to be processed well as organic materials has changed. We would be able to update the cost of that service and that would be the only new information relative to the recommendation provided previously from staff. There is not a new type of diaper out there or a new processing technology available to us in this region that would allow us to ensure that these are actually composted in the industrial composting service we use.

[1:50:47] So it would just be an update to those costs and expenses. Thank you for that information. So I won’t be supporting the amendment even though I can understand where the council is going. I don’t hear a loud concern in the area that I represent when it comes to diapers. I do think, you know, as the program unfolds, we’ll learn a little bit more how Londoners use the green bin and the garbage.

[1:51:22] And it’s always a debate how we deal with our garbage. But one of the things I was pleased that staff did make recommendations for group homes, especially adult group homes, that they work on a business schedule. So they’re diapers and that from these homes are sort of picked up on a regular basis as opposed to the two weeks. So I won’t be supporting the amendment even though I can understand where the council is coming from, but I think we’ve had the information.

[1:51:58] We’ve got the information. I’m not sure exactly what we’re looking for in this report back. And, you know, starting with a qualified processor as well as one that’s nearby is really making me stump right off the bat here. So thanks for the conversation. Councillor Layman and then Councillor Frank. Thank you, Mayor. We devised the green bin program at least five years ago. I know it was delayed by COVID.

[1:52:32] So it had to have been, you know, early in my previous term. You know, Councillor Hopkins made a good point. You know, it’s evolving program. So we’ve just had a few years where we’ve started using it. Hunters are getting used to it. Participation rates are growing, which is great. However, with any new thing comes some challenges. And one of those challenges, quite frankly, is moving to a biweekly pickup of general waste. And as I said earlier, these products are the biggest thing I hear from folks as we moved into the new waste management system.

[1:53:18] We’ve got a problem. I think it’s incumbent upon me to support looking at this problem. Whether it’s within a green bin, I understand it might not go to general waste recovery. It doesn’t now in the general waste pickup, but is there a way we can have essentially a weekly pickup of these items as opposed to, you know, eight weeks of special delivery or a special weekly pickup.

[1:53:54] So I encourage support of this. Let’s look at how other communities have looked at it and go from there. But I want to hear how we can do it, what it costs, and make that decision at that time based on things that we talked about five or six years ago. Councillor Frank. Thank you. And I won’t be supporting this motion as my understanding is adding green bins to the compost wood.

[1:54:25] In fact, just contaminate it and pretty much make it unusable. I would be interested, however, in looking at some sort of collection program that collected diapers on their own and then other items of the same and then do a waste energy pilot or in the same way I know Nespresso pods are collecting their own bags and then those have some sort of end of life use. I’d be interested in that alternative, but at this point, I don’t want to contaminate our existing compost stream. And as someone who just went through two years of diapers and the green bin process at the same time, I will say it is pretty brutal in the summer.

[1:55:00] That said, I got through it and I did have to buy some bag tags and I made my way through and it was a little bit annoying. But nonetheless, I was happy to have the green bin picked up weekly as well as the recycling and then buying a couple extra of those bag tags and having them at home when I needed them and just having a bag of diapers that went out on its own the morning of was a perfectly adequate solution for me and I was happy to do it. So appreciate where the council is coming, but I think that this would be better suited for some sort of waste energy pilot. And I’d be happy to work with them and support that in the future.

[1:55:37] Any other speakers to this? Go ahead, Deputy Roy Lewis and then Councillor McAllister. Thank you, your worship. I’m gonna say Councillor Palosa highlighted very eloquently a lot of the reasons all not be supporting this. Councillor Hopkins asked the excellent question that provided the answer I needed to hear that the only new information we would really be getting is an updated cost. And to Councillor Frank’s point, we’re not talking about a waste to energy option at this time, we’re just talking about what I heard was a special pickup for these items.

[1:56:12] And whether it’s in the green bin and having to screen them out, or whether it’s some sort of special pickup, you know, I come back to a couple of things. There’s the process and cost. It’s actually, in my opinion, not our responsibility to solve every problem for every individual household in the city. Councillor Frank just spoke to the fact that she worked through it and used bag tags. You can get, even if you don’t have a garage, you can get a secured container that can stay outside your home, where these items can be stored until pickup. They can be transported to an Enviro Depot if you really want to get rid of a couple bags quickly and it’s the same cost as a bag tag, except you don’t wait for somebody to pick it up, you drive it there yourself.

[1:56:55] So there are options. There are ways for folks who are dealing with this for a period of time to deal with it that doesn’t require a city-wide program to be implemented. I’m not saying that I wouldn’t be interested in this discussion in the future, but I think that there is a couple of things that we need to keep in mind here. We heard Ms. Sherr say the composition of these incontinence products really hasn’t changed. They’re still non-recyclable material in them that can’t go anywhere. And so for me, that’s why it’s a no right now, as well as we are moving towards the pet waste option.

[1:57:32] So we are making an adjustment. We are looking at a pilot program. And I think as we adjust these programs, the Green Bend program, we need to walk before we run. We have approximately 11 million people in Ontario on some sort of version of this same sort of waste collection program. So it works in other municipalities. I know in terms of looking at what Toronto did, and this was back when we were rolling out the Green Bend, even then Toronto was having issues with the diaper stream in their Green Bend program.

[1:58:12] And I know that they continue to have that. It’s actually making their program more problematic than helpful. So I’m absolutely supportive of moving ahead with the pet waste. I think that’s step one. I think this might be a conversation that we revisit in future years, but it’s not one I’m prepared to revisit now because I’m not hearing anything has changed in terms of the ability to recycle this material. And Councilor Palosa said it very well. All we would be doing is putting it, allowing it to go into the Green Bend and then taking it out to transport to W12 anyway, which is why it goes in the black bag garbage.

[1:58:44] So it goes right to W12. Councilor McAllister, excuse me, McAllister. Thank you and through the chair. Appreciate the discussion today. I wonder if I should recuse myself or the kid on the way. I’m about to experience the diapers. So maybe I should refer this and come back in a couple of years. No, but I do appreciate that. I think this is an important discussion to have, especially considering this is something we’ll probably all hear from. But I mean, I just needed to go on the record in terms of I’ll probably be changing my vote to voting against this because I wanted to have the discussion, appreciate it.

[1:59:26] But in terms of what I’ve heard, technology hasn’t changed. I don’t want to contaminate the Green Bend program as it is. I agree with Councilor Frank. This is maybe something we should look at as a specialized service. Unless all of a sudden, we create some wonderful, compostable diapers in the next couple of years. I don’t see this changing right now. But I think this is a discussion, obviously, we should have as things change. But right now, I’ll be a no on this. Okay, Councilor Preble, go ahead. Very similar to my colleague, Councilor McAllister. I just want to see this and explore in terms of the Green Bend, like, for example, like some European countries to sterilization, separation, and repurposing.

[2:00:10] And I didn’t hear that kind of at this stage currently in our state, so I will not be supporting this. Thank you. Okay, that exhausts my speaker’s list. So this is on the amendment that Councilor Van Mirvergen before that was amended to expand the scope a little bit. So on the amendment, we’ll open that for voting. Letting the vote, motion fails, three to 12.

[2:00:55] Okay, so we’re back to the main motion. Any speakers to add? All right, let’s open the main motion for voting. Yes, Councilor, we’re in the middle voting.

[2:01:32] It’s the main motion, there’s no D, so we’ll vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Go ahead, Councilor. Thanks, Mayor. So we are on the next item, item seven. That’s 2.3 of the report for post temporary warming center, framework, I’ll put that on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor. So I’ll look for speakers to that, Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, similar to before I pulled this because I’m gonna be voting no.

[2:02:07] And the reason is because of the funding source. It’s because it’s coming from the 2025 operating or the 2025 property tax surplus, of which we know that we need it and more. Like there’s not gonna be enough money to do all of the things that we need to do. The shelter contracts come up for renewal next year. When we approved them two years ago, there was a $4 million shortfall that we approved coming from the reserve fund. The budget operating monitoring report let us know that there is a funding issue going forward, that we don’t have enough money to do all of the homeless services that we have right now.

[2:02:49] And so to go ahead and approve one, from this funding source without seeing the big picture, without understanding how much money we have, what are the demands on it? I just feel like it’s premature that it’s jumping the queue to approve this one without looking at the others. And without a full evaluation, really, of what it is that we’re doing and what is needed and what are the priorities, this was, we’re calling it a temporary program, but this will be the fourth winter, I believe, if my counting is correct.

[2:03:24] And so at what point is it not temporary anymore? It was part of the budget, we didn’t approve it then. Now it comes forward now. And in the past, I was told we didn’t take operational funds out of the reserve fund. The rationale was that it was temporary, but when we keep doing it over and over and over again, it feels like it’s contrary to the policies, it’s contrary to, again, the taxpayers that I listened to that are on the brink of homelessness themselves and that are saying we need to work within our provincial and federal funding allotments.

[2:04:01] We need to find out how we can serve more people with the funding that we have and not put it on the backs of the property taxpayers. And when our rates, I understand this year, we won’t be very high, we’ll be under five, but in the past, that eight and 7% rates were affecting our renters as well. So for that reason, I will be voting no. I actually, I did wanna mention to the use of the Boyle Community Center. So again, we all know we need winter overnight shelter spaces when it gets very, very cold.

[2:04:35] Absolutely, we need it. But it is again in one area of our city. It’s an area that has been dealing with the oversaturation of social services in that area. And now we’re gonna be doing it at a community center, which means that their regular programming is gonna be, we were told at a committee that they were gonna be stopping the weekly programming, making it more drop-in style so that there was less impact when the community center was needed. This impacts families. And there are children who have weekly programs there that may not have them now, that may have to travel further.

[2:05:13] People don’t all have cars that they’re able to move around the city and change community centers. Plus this is an area that had not been as impacted by homelessness. And there is a concern that as we use that center for two winters, that there’s going to be a movement into that area of the neighborhood. And so I won’t be supporting it. The cost works out too about by my math $242 a night per person in that community center. And I just wonder if there’s other ways that we could be supporting people that’s more financially effective and that it’s not an equity issue where we’re placing a burden that belongs to the city in one area of our city, in one neighborhood.

[2:06:03] And to certain people that are paying an unfair portion of a burden that belongs to the entire city. Any other speakers to this? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to two.

[2:06:49] Go ahead, Chair. Thank you, Mayor. Next on the list is item nine, that’s 3.1 of the report that’s the health and homelessness whole of community system response research and evaluation report. I’ll put that on the floor. Councillor Trostoff, will you go to— Were we just voting on Stevenson’s amendment or on the main motion? There was no amendment proposed. We voted on the main motion. I would like to ask for reconsideration ‘cause I would have wanted to support the main motion and I’m very sorry. Okay, you can make a request for reconsideration.

[2:07:23] So one of the 13 in favor has to be willing to move reconsideration for Councillor Trostoff. Councillor Lehman is willing to move it. Councillor Ferrer is willing to second it. So what this will be is reconsideration of the matter that was just before us, so Councillor Trostoff can fix his vote. Okay, so reconsideration is not debatable, reconsideration is on the floor, it will open that for voting. As soon as it’s ready.

[2:07:57] Sorry, put you on the spot there. Also reconsideration, it will open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[2:09:12] Okay, so the chair, I’m willing to assume you’re willing to put the same item back on the floor. Okay, it doesn’t need a second or so, I just want to check that. So any further discussion on this? Okay, so we’re voting this again and open the vote. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

[2:10:05] Go ahead, Chair. Thank you, Mayor. Okay, next on the list, item nine, 3.1 of the report that’s health and homelessness, whole community system response, research and evaluation report, I’ll put that on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor. I’ll look for our speakers. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I have an amendment to move. Sure, go ahead. So I can read it out. Civic administration be directed to request and report back with the metrics as presented and discussed at the October 8th, 2024 SPPC meeting. Okay, I look for a seconder for that, Councillor ramen.

[2:10:43] All right, that’s on the floor. I look for speakers. You’re welcome to go first for that, Councillor. Yeah, I’ll go ahead. So when the presentation was last October, it was a great presentation. And they provided the metrics that we were gonna be expecting, the templates that were gonna be used. We had an opportunity to ask a lot of questions, got great answers. It was supported unanimously at that committee meeting. I supported it. I thought it was a great presentation. I thought the templates were great. I thought the metrics were thorough.

[2:11:15] The answers to my concerns were great. So I’m not sure why we didn’t get all of it when the report came to us this time. But my request to my colleagues is just to say thank you very much for what we did get and to ask staff to go back and ask this research team to complete what it was that they presented to us last year. It’s the high level of information that I think is required for us as a governance body. It’ll give us and the public that year-over-year comparatives that they explained how valuable that was gonna be.

[2:11:54] And so it was something that I was really looking forward to, something that I still am fully supportive of. And I’m confident that with council’s support, we will get that information that we were all, I think, looking forward to. Maybe just through you to staff, if I can ask, if there is information or reports that was potentially that they’ve received that just haven’t been included in this public report? Go ahead, Mr. Dickens.

[2:12:30] Through you, Your Worship, neither the folks at the Center for Research on Health Equity or Social Inclusion or Cressy, or city staff have access to additional supports that we chose not to publish or produce. What council will see though is that some of those items such as the number of shelter beds, those will be included in the soon-to-be-launched new homelessness dashboard. So from the time of the SPPC presentation to date, council also approved a new homelessness dashboard, which was to produce online information, including things like the number of shelter beds or occupancy rates and so on.

[2:13:10] That information will be on the new dashboard and was falling outside of the scope of the whole community system response, which was looking at hubs and high sport of housing. There are other data sets that as this research started and was conducted, proved to be very difficult to obtain, at least into the fullest extent, and in some cases, to any extent. Some of that data is owned by other organizations. Some of it was not readily available, and some of it cannot be produced, despite the intention originally that it would be information we could get access to.

[2:13:45] Go ahead, council. Thank you just to follow up, ‘cause this is the second time now I’ve heard that it falls outside of the scope of the whole community system response, which is just hubs and highly supportive housing. That feels like that was a change, because even if you go back and listen to the presentation that was done last October, it was very clear that this was looking at the whole response, it was looking at cost, it was looking at a number of MOUs between the cross sector partnerships, it talked about funding, talked about the number of staffing, frontline versus management, encampments.

[2:14:24] So has there been such a radical change in the whole of community that now it’s just hubs and highly supportive housing, not even encampments, and our other homelessness response? I just want clarity on that. Mr. Dickens, go ahead. Through you, your worship. The report actually includes available, so you’re correct, it is more than just hubs and highly supportive housing. The report actually covers all of that stuff. The report speaks to the workforce, so it speaks to impacts on business.

[2:14:57] It speaks to impact on the healthcare system. It’s well documented. In the report, it includes available hospital data on emergency department use by people with no fixed address, preventable deaths among people experiencing homelessness, but it also notes in the report that more specific data, example 911 calls or coast call volumes related to homelessness, could not be included due to the limitations in the source data. That’s not data that the city owns, and it was data we were not able to get access to. In terms of encampments, metrics related to encampments were not included in the evaluation.

[2:15:33] The encampment plan was sort of sparse in its endorsement by council. However, operational funding for the full implementation was not approved, so we were not actually activating much of that plan, so there wasn’t much to evaluate. So it is certainly more than just hubs and highly supportive housing, but the contents of that research as well documented in the report. Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, just a final follow up then. This is $600,000 invested, and we’ve heard there’s hundreds of researchers.

[2:16:08] So if there isn’t data for encampments and coast calls and everything else, then what is all of this research that’s being done? Mr. Dickens, you wanna take a shot at that? Thank you, Your Worship. I can’t speak to the additional research that’s being done, but I can speak to the fact that we were fortunate to receive outside funding for this work. The dollars that are referenced came in partnership through St. Joseph’s Healthcare and their generous foundation, as well as other community partners, but the St. Joseph’s Finch Mental Health Foundation provided the funding for the researchers to conduct this work through CRACI, and it was not funded through the city.

[2:17:03] We started focusing on the work itself and the evaluation framework that was before council. We know this work, as it matures and as it evolves, it invites other researchers to the table. Many academics, frontline workers, and people lived experience, have helped shape this evaluation framework, and we know there are other evaluators and researchers that are exploring other alternatives and other options to dig deeper and to evaluate other aspects of this work as well.

[2:17:37] Mr. Stevenson. Thank you, I appreciate the extra information. Regardless of the fact that we have the dashboard coming, which is great, I do think there’s real merit in having the templates as presented to us last year with whatever information is available. Number of shelter beds, active encampments, number of people living in encampments, substance use deaths, a lot of these things would be good to see the year-over-year comparator. Having data as we go forward to make decisions over the next six months, which are gonna impact neighborhoods and people living on our streets over the next year is gonna be really important to have that data, and as I said, it was presented to us in a great way.

[2:18:16] It was supported, and I would like to have, if not all of it, as much as can, come back to us would be great. There are speakers to this. Councilor Freire, go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. So I do know that some of these metrics will be coming back to the dashboard, and I know some may not be necessarily within the dashboard, but as we start having that implemented in the phase approach coming through, maybe I would work with a counselor, maybe we can get some of those metrics back on. I just wanted to ask, if we can just go to staff, and you just let me know, we’re still on schedule for the release of phase one of the dashboard and when that would be, and potentially if you can speak to the other phases of implementation as well.

[2:19:01] Go ahead. Through you, your worship, yes. As planned phase one should be launching this fall, in fact, we expect it to go live this week. The other phases, they will start to come online as originally described to Council. Thank you, I’m excited about that. And phase one implementation will have demographics, the population numbers. I believe it may have numbers of encampments citywide, and it will show year over year data trends for other years past, or other months past as well. I think it’s granular, and it goes down to monthly, and we should be able to look into yours.

[2:19:37] I guess I’ll just go back to staff to potentially confirm any of that, or anything that you can add. Go ahead. Thank you, worship. I’m sorry, I don’t have the detailed breakdown of the content of each phase. It is as we had presented it to Council previously. That’s okay, thank you for that. So the dashboard will be released this week. I am looking forward to that. It will give us metrics, numbers, populations, demographics. A lot of the preliminary figures and numbers that we have right now, and in additional phases, we will have more expansion on that.

[2:20:15] The type of housing that we’ve built, housing that we’ve brought people out of homelessness into housing, it will show those numbers as well. But I will be willing to work with the Council, if you’d like, to see if we can bring any other metric that may not be captured in the first or second phase. Sorry, you’re good? Okay, other speakers then. Okay, go ahead, Councilor Provost. Thank you, I think that most of you know that I love the comparative analysis, and I think that’s very useful, and we do need that to kind of evaluate the present and kind of come up as proactive initiatives for the future.

[2:21:03] I truly believe in this platform that’s coming out, and I do, that’s the, any study, any feasibility studies that are done in different teams, different stats are collected differently. We are gonna have this, I don’t think we will be comparing totally apples to apples in terms of if this group did this comparative analysis to our future, to our future platform. Therefore, I’m good with the platform. I will not be supporting what’s in front of us. I do want that platform to work and to work. If there are any Councilors that feel that there are certain data that needs to be collected, that it’s missing, let’s work on it together with our staff.

[2:21:43] But let’s move forward, because as I said, the only we go backwards, we aren’t gonna be comparing apples to apples to each group, collects the data in different way, and I believe this is the better way to do it. So I will not be supporting what’s in front of us, but I really want us to work together with our staff on the future of our platform. Thank you. Okay, any of the speakers on the amendment? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open the amendment for voting. Deputy Mayor Lewis, closing the vote.

[2:23:08] Motion fails, six to nine. Okay, on the main motion, speakers. Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councillor Stephen, I know he just moved an amendment so he can’t speak to the main motion, of course, as well. So go ahead, Deputy Mayor. Okay, as long as we’re not. Councillor Stephen hasn’t healed it before on the main. She only rose to move the amendment. I mean, if you want, you can continue on first, but she only rose to make an amendment. She has not actually spoken to the main motion.

[2:23:44] Thank you, Your Worship. So I will say, and I actually had supported the amendment only because I will say that it would have been helpful to me to see in that, in this report, the data that could not be presented flagged as we couldn’t access the data. Because I did feel that the report was missing some of the things that I expected to see from the discussion we had a year ago. That said, I also appreciate the answers Mr. Dixon. Dickens gave us about how some of that will appear in the dashboard, how some of it is just not accessible.

[2:24:20] But I just want to say, going forward, as we continue to get these reports, I think it would be helpful to have a bit of a flag in terms of where information belongs to other organizations and cannot be provided through this format. It was noted in there, an increased use in HIFAS and some of the reporting mechanisms that we use and the by name access list. I just wonder if through you, Mr. Dickens or another member of the team can update us on what progress we are making with respect to agencies all using the same method and the same system.

[2:25:07] Because we see agencies come to us, and we just made the decision on the temporary warming centers. But I think to Councillor Stevenson’s point, had we seen shelterbed numbers in this report, which I realize are not ours to necessarily access, but it would be helpful in assessing whether our winter responses are correct, at the correct levels, at the correct variations in terms of surge capacity versus warming center spaces versus those things. So I’m just wondering if staff can indicate where are we in terms of our service provider partners, coming together, moving through a single by name list.

[2:25:48] And I asked that respectfully as well, ‘cause it was just a cycle ago, Councillor Ferrer and I worked on an affordable housing project, where again, we had an affordable housing provider having their own list and our by name list. So where are we on getting everybody on the same page on this? Go ahead, Mr. Dickon. Through you, Your Worship, I can report with limited information that we’re still continuing to make progress. As far as contracted agencies, those organizations are using HIFIS.

[2:26:23] As far as third party housing providers, I wouldn’t be able to comment on their HIFIS uptake. I was not prepared for this. Question related to HIFIS uptake and my apologies. A lot of the HIFIS usage at the individual level, at the participant level comes down to consent. So we can have all the organizations in the world be enrolled in HIFIS, trained in HIFIS, understand the HIFIS requirements, and sometimes we have limitations when it comes to the end user of the participant not providing consent to have that information collected.

[2:26:57] There is anonymous data that is collected through the system, but that does obviously create natural barriers or challenges that our staff continue and partners continue to try and overcome. So I’d be happy to try and get an update from our managers on our housing stability services team that oversee the HIFIS program and get some information circulated. Go ahead. Thank you, I appreciate that. And I know I threw that fastball down the middle without any warning for you there. So I didn’t expect you to necessarily have all the details ready, but I did want to ask, I’ll take you up on sitting down one-on-one at a time when we can arrange a meeting after you’ve had that conversation because I do think if we’re going to continue to pursue a coordinated approach, we need all boats growing in the same direction on this and we need people using the same systems so that we all have the same numbers.

[2:27:53] I even struggle with the idea that we can’t get participant consent because I think if you want help, there’s also a responsibility to participate in help in the way that it’s offered to some degree. I recognize people have different issues going on in their life, but if you want help, we need the information to actually help you. And so I think that that’s a bit of a challenge as well. And so it comes back to the old rights versus responsibilities. And I think there’s a responsibilities piece involved here as well. I do understand that there are challenges and I do understand that we can only ask, we can’t compel at the moment, but I just wanted to flag that.

[2:28:30] I do think there was a lot of good information in the report. I will say, and I appreciate the work that went into it, looking at the emergency visit diversions and those kinds of things, all very valuable information to share. I will say, I think one of the costs that was perhaps missing when we start to compare costs of psychiatric beds versus supportive housing beds versus inpatient mental health care, we’re missing the outside costs. And again, I get that that’s not a scope that we necessarily have a full picture on, but we, even as a city, are running CIP programs to allow BIA’s to run septeds and increase the fortifications.

[2:29:15] There’s no other way to say it of some of their places of business. That comes with a cost. There’s increased costs around foot patrols. There’s increased costs around private security. We had during our multi-year budget discussion, debates about security costs as well as boards and commission locations. So I think that that has to be a part of the discussion moving forward too. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to comment one thing about the report. I’d also like A and B voted on separately. When we specifically around the highly supportive housing, I really think what was missing in this report was an evaluation of the impact on the neighborhood surrounding the highly supportive housing.

[2:30:00] So we had petitions from four of the condo apartment buildings near the 362 Dundas House of Hope, where residents are saying that in the last year, it’s become really unsafe in their neighborhood, unsafe to go for a walk at night, unsafe to go to the dog park near there. That wasn’t represented in this at all. The business survey was the downtown London 2024 survey. I think there should have been a survey of the businesses right around this highly supportive housing ‘cause we’re looking at the success inside with the 49 people.

[2:30:37] But what if there’s hundreds of people in the apartment buildings that are suffering? We’ve got businesses nearby that are saying their business is really down and people are just coming in and picking up from the residents. They’re not willing to bring their families. I just feel that there needs to be some balance when we’re evaluating these programs that we’re looking at the visitors who come to our city, the people who work downtown and in that area, the people who come to visit, people who live in that area, the people who want to take their families out into the great local restaurants that we have.

[2:31:17] There’s business reviews for the hotels that are publicly available, stating the serious safety concerns that people feel when they attend hotels in the heart of our downtown. So we’ve placed with property tax money, 24 extra beds in a location last year that I am hearing, and it’s not even my ward, but I am hearing, please, from the neighboring community to address the issues. They say there’s constant sirens, constant emergency vehicles.

[2:31:53] Okay, point of order from Councilor Trossa. Go ahead. Unless we’re evaluating whether to receive the research report, right? Yes, so I think what we’re doing is we’re now talking about many of the other NDC of poverty in the area, of issues in the area. I think we need to focus on what’s at the Council table right now, and just not go off on a parade of horribles about everything else that’s happening that many of which are outside of our control.

[2:32:30] We have this research report that’s on the table. Okay, Councilor, I think you’ve made, I don’t want you to get into debate ‘cause you’re trying to make your point of order, which is I’m taking as the Councillor’s out of scope and you’re asking me to keep her in scope as your point of order. The rest is more debate than anything. So I’ll say to that, I think you, I think that certainly there is a service in the area. There’s also a municipal park right beside it that has had challenges for a number of years.

[2:33:03] So I understand you’re rising in saying, keep focused on the research valuation, but part of the facilities are evaluated in it, and so I wanna give the Council a little bit of leeway to comment on the report and the data and measurement framework. I know although we had a motion and a debate on bringing some other metrics forward, I still think it’s within the scope to comment, relatively broadly on the evaluation framework and what it’s assessing, which could include some of these pieces. But I would say to the Council, I think you’re on track, maybe just keep it tight around what’s before us and I think I’ll continue it on.

[2:33:43] So I’m gonna say here you’re concerned, but I don’t think she’s too far out of scope that she can’t continue her comments, so go ahead. Yeah, this report states that the House of Hope at 362 Dundas Street is a huge success. And I’m saying the report is not considering the impact and the negative comments that are both public and privately made stating that it has been, as Councillor Trosto said, a parade of horribles. That is not reflected, and so I’m asking for, and I know I hear stuff about 403 Thompson Road, I can’t speak as much around that one, but to not look at the impact, if we’re helping 24 people with municipal property tax dollars, when people find out that that is being funded with their property tax dollars.

[2:34:32] Now you’re starting to stray, Councillor, and I see lots of people kind of nodding now. The valuation framework is fine, but now you’re engaging in a debate about the assessment of a facility, which I mean, you can disagree with the evaluation framework, but we’re not here to debate the wider components of the success of one piece of the framework. We’re here to receive the framework and then request the mering council to continue advocacy on a number of pieces. So not to say those things aren’t things that can be debated, it’s just, I do want you to keep it tight to be receiving the report on the evaluation framework, and for the most part, your comments are there, but now I see lots of colleagues nodding that you’re kind of straying on a lot of scope.

[2:35:15] So keep it tight, that would be great. Yeah, that’s fine. The whole of community system response, I’ve been saying since 2023, this is an evaluation of the whole of community system response, and there are residents and business owners and property tax owners and visitors to our city who are pleading with us to balance the evaluation so that we are not solely looking at the impacts on the few that are being served. If we are helping 24 people with the one point, whatever million that we’re spending at House of Hope of property tax dollars, and we’re hurting hundreds of people and a dozen or two dozen businesses, we get to as a city council look at it from a whole of community perspective.

[2:36:00] If we can’t get that from this evaluation report, then I’m suggesting that maybe there’s a task force or something is set up so that we start to take a balanced evaluation approach to the choices that we are making on behalf of the London taxpayers who are frustrated, increasingly frustrated with the lack of public safety and the lack of a broad perspective of evaluation that takes into account the impacts on their daily lives. Councillor McAllister.

[2:36:37] Thank you and through the chair. I found the report quite useful. Having one of the properties actually in my ward, I’m sure Councillor Ferra can speak to his own. I think part of our job is having that community engagement. I know the Councillor seems to think that we have to have that as part of a report. I think that’s part of our ongoing job. I will say with Thompson, our frequent conversations with the community, I do take issue with other Councillors saying they know better than others, and I find it a bit insulting that just reading a report and you claim that you understand the situation on the ground.

[2:37:10] I think we can all speak to our experiences, but I will say with 403 Thompson, it is not being without its challenges, but as we’ve said throughout this process, we learn, we evolve. I will say I’ve had very good conversations with Indwell or the period of time they’ve been open. They also operate other properties throughout the other parts of the city, and I won’t speak to them because those are not in my area. Okay, a point of personal privilege. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you.

[2:37:42] I represent a certain area of the city, but I also represent the entire city. So saying that I’m out of order sharing the concerns that people share with me, I just want the comments to stop around how somehow I’m inappropriate in speaking on behalf of Londoners. Yes, so on the point of order, so we all speak on behalf of all Londoners, all of us do. We may be elected by wards, but we are sit as the London City Council, and that means we care about all aspects of the city.

[2:38:17] So that means colleagues have to be careful about how broad they paint the brush of their comments, saying I speak for all Londoners, it’s totally inappropriate. Certainly there are Londoners that we represent democratically, but we do represent all Londoners when we sit as a municipal council. So I would say the caution kind of goes both ways. You can not say a council only represents a certain area, but also not say that you represent the views of everybody all at once. So, but we do all as municipal council as a collective body represent all Londoners that should be thinking city-wide.

[2:38:52] So I’ll say, I understand the point of personal privilege. I understand why the councilors commented that way. I think, let’s get back to the focus of the debate. I think there’s great points to be made by all. And so I’m gonna say my comments have dealt with the point of personal privilege and Councilor McAllister, you can continue. Thank you. And I just, perhaps I’m a bit defensive, but having one of these in my area, and it constantly being used, 122 baseline and other example, I get very tired of having to defend properties in our respective wards.

[2:39:26] And I think, yes, we can be contacted by residents, but there are multiple perspectives. I think we have to speak with people involved, and that’s part of our job as a councilor. I think the people who represent the wards themselves, we hear directly, we have our town halls, and I just think that also has to be respected. So I appreciate the mayor’s comments. I, again, still just say, I appreciate the report. I would also like to say, in terms of Part B, one of the things we talked about a committee, and I appreciate the mayor’s comments on this, but there is back and forth.

[2:39:59] In terms of the metrics, the release reports, the mayor indicated that these are important things to have with both provincial, federal conversations. And so if there are issues with the metrics, if there are gaps that the province and the federal government are identifying that they need more information on very specific things required for funding, those are things that I would like to hear about, because that’s how we need to change our metrics. If that is a gap that is indeed identified, and I have to date, not hurt that. So I, again, appreciate the advocacy, the mayor. I know many councillors also take those opportunities as well.

[2:40:35] And I will say also with the metrics, perhaps something that Councillor Layman and Councillor Stevenson can take back to the police board. And I have seen in the past, LPS to do a very good job in terms of metrics around coast, around 911 wall dispatch. Those are things that the chief has been very successful with, presenting to us when he has the opportunity. And I would say we might not have all of these metrics, but there are other partners, including the police, that can speak to the success of those programs as well. It’s not all on city staff to have those numbers at their fingertips at all times. Again, I just want to thank everyone who was involved with this.

[2:41:09] I recognize this is a large undertaking. There are many projects that have only just got online. And in my conversations with our agency partners, obviously we’d like to see more competitors. There are other supportive housing projects, other hubs coming online, and more data will become available over time. But as we have only had a few years in terms of seeing how these things run, it will take time to collect that. And I’m confident that we can adapt these to changing nature of what happens in our city, especially when it comes to homelessness. Thank you.

[2:41:42] Okay, I have myself on the spiritual snacks, then Councillor Ferreira. So I’ll turn over the chair to Deputy Mayor. I will take the chair and I recognize Mayor Morgan. So I’m just gonna speak briefly on a couple of points. First, I think the debate is good, but also interesting. It’s funny that Deputy Mayor stood up and said he supported the last amendment because he wanted to get that sort of information. I actually opposed it because I support the same thing because the motion was very specific to asking for requested metrics which staff said aren’t necessarily available in this report or not.

[2:42:21] So I think that there are data and information out there that we are interested in. I think some of it will come as part of the evaluation framework. Some of it will come as part of others. Some of it will be on the dashboard. I think there is an interesting council in knowing in a clearer way which pieces of the original framework are available, which ones aren’t wise at the case and where can we find them if they’re not part of this particular research project? ‘Cause I recognize that when research grants are funded, there’s a relative level of independence with the researchers to pursue kind of the past that they’re researching both on a qualitative and quantitative perspective.

[2:42:55] That being said, I think the good points about data being available in different areas. I do support receiving the information and the work that was done. I think there is good data and information in the report. I think that they’ve proceeded along the lines of as they’d indicated they would and have reduced the first reports to Councillors McAllister’s point. I think as new metrics and interest come along that either the province or others are interested in, certainly it could be requested that that either be collected through this framework or information that could be collected through other measures if the data is available. On part B, certainly supportive of part B, the request to prioritize advocacy efforts with both levels of government to secure ongoing funding in support of the related services.

[2:43:35] I think one thing that the report does make clear is that when services are working, services that cost money, there’s always a risk about the sustainability of those services if you don’t have adequate ongoing funding supports. And so I think our continued advocacy on this front is important to stay as a priority because a number of the things that we’re engaged with and researching are squarely within provincial jurisdiction, crossover with municipal jurisdiction or crossover with other partners within the sector that are both provincial and municipal, whether we’re the service provider or not.

[2:44:09] So I appreciate the robust first initial report on this. I look forward to future reports and I think this is an ongoing evolving thing and I’ll certainly upon council approval be asking for your support in whatever way it’s possible to continue to prioritize our advocacy efforts, both as a council, as the mayor in partnership with the other agencies and entities that are impacted by this. So those are my comments. I appreciate the debate and discussion so far. And I think this is just the first duration of the data measurement framework.

[2:44:43] We will certainly see others in the future. Thank you. Your worship, I’ll return the chair to you. I have no one to add to your speaker’s list. Yeah, Councillor Ferrer, go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. And thanks to everybody who’s participated in the debate. I think it’s all appropriate, all comments I’ve heard. The report does speak to a public narrative that remains polarized and it does speak to misinformation and stigma out in the community. And this is exactly what the report is trying to overcome. It’s trying to provide information.

[2:45:15] It’s provide clarity so we know what is working, what is not working, how can we improve? And what direction we need to go. We can’t just go and start making actions or taking directions here without actually having the information at hand so we know what would be the best and the most appropriate way to move forward, what would be the most efficient way to use our resources. So I would wanna start with that comment right there. With the House of Hope, we have some great metrics from the House of Hope. I do hear some issues or concerns about the House of Hope but I would say I’ve been on the ground and I have canvassed the entire area and there are other properties that are contributing to these issues.

[2:45:53] 388 Dundas which is an unsecured building which is on the other side of a hotel there is a main source of some issues, not the House of Hope itself. So just to clarify that for the record so people know the House of Hope is one of our only with other supportive housing providers. Real way that we can actually help with some of the problems that our community faces with every single day. Some of the numbers that came out of this report for the House of Hope, emergency department visits down 83%. That’s a huge, huge number.

[2:46:26] People, hospital stays overall, 61% down. So, and then it also provides, it also shows some of the costs of what we’re dealing with, $100,000 per person on average that the city taxpayer has to pay if we don’t take some of these measures. I would also add to how do we find, how do we measure our level of success? And I say this a bit, but we are in a top down failed system. We are operating at the city level here with really, in my opinion, the only way of direction.

[2:47:00] The city is one of the only entities that I know of that are taking meaningful directions. And yes, we are debating some of the issues, some of the times it’s a little contentious, but in the system overall that we’re operating in, sometimes it’s hard to really measure some values of success. Sometimes it’s really hard to show success when we are operating in a system that seems to be not balanced in our favor, not balanced in one that we are trying to make some good progress here. So I would point out to that. And just some other areas that I’ve seen in this report, you know, our support of housing is really the only tool that we have in our municipal tool kit that we can actually bring online that can actually get as close to some of the deeper rooted issues that we are facing with.

[2:47:47] It doesn’t go all the way and it’s not gonna be able to help everybody, but it is the best tool we have. So we do need more of it. And if there are some issues, usually it comes down to a resourcing issue. I usually see if we were to resource appropriately, certain areas, certain supportive housing units, we would not necessarily have some of the issues that we have. So the debate and the question here is how are we gonna resource it? If we have issues, we need to start really putting some funding down to mitigate those issues. So this evaluation report is quite eye opening.

[2:48:24] I knew a lot of the metrics already before. I went through the report, but it is something that helps us know which way we need to navigate. It does give us a direction to go. It does tell us what’s working. It tells us how we can enhance certain areas. So I would ask, you know, anybody in the public who hasn’t seen it, check it out. Along with more information coming forward from the dashboard that we spoke to, I’m really trying to get the facts. I’m really trying to get the truth of the matter and really trying to see how we can tease out those facts and use them so we can actually increase our impact and increase our ability to make a difference.

[2:49:02] So those would be my comments. I’m gonna obviously support the whole thing. I appreciate the report as it came through. I appreciate all those who worked on it. I appreciate staff for bringing it forward and having meetings with us so we can ask our questions. So those are my comments. Councilor Frank and then Councilor Troso. Thank you. I just wanna say I appreciate the work that went into the report and I appreciate the work of all the service providers both who are in the community and also in the gallery today. I think it’s really important that we continue to offer a diversity of services and what works for one person is not gonna work for everybody.

[2:49:36] So offering hubs, shelters, outreach, highly supportive housing. I’ll be voting yes on the micro modular shelter site because I think we need to be offering people different options ‘cause we wanna make sure that they’re inside and I would say, of course there are impacts to the community. I think we’re doing what we can to try and address them but I’m always open if members of council have ideas for solutions. I’m always open to looking at even more options that we could be providing to the community to address the both internal issues to some of these buildings as well as external issues. So happy to work with folks on those ideas but I just wanted to say thank you.

[2:50:15] Councilor Troso. Thank you, I’ll be very brief. I spoke at length and committee about what I thought about the quality, the qualifications and the integrity of the research report that we received. I’m not gonna repeat that. I’m just gonna say if there are people on this council who do not think that we should, and what is this motion actually asking us to do? Receive the report, wow, receive the report. We’re not gonna receive the report.

[2:50:48] So how bad would the report have to be for it to rise to level of something we don’t want to receive? I think we’d have to show that there was a consistent flaw in the methodology, maybe that there were ethical issues, maybe that it was poorly written. None of that’s present here. And to say that we shouldn’t receive the report really misses the point. Because what’s on this agenda is receive the report. That’s not a big ask.

[2:51:25] We receive documents all the time where there might be underlying differences of opinion. But I think, and this is just my opinion, I think that all and all this research came to a conclusion, albeit a tentative conclusion, albeit a conclusion that is gonna need a lot more research and research is an iterative and continuing process. So this report is in no means the last word on the research that’s gonna be done on this. Maybe it’s a starting point, an entry point.

[2:51:59] But I think the bottom line is this research report gave us indications that what we’re doing is working. This research report gave us indications that there have been some successes, not enough, but there have been some successes and there’s something too what this council has been trying to do. Now, I know that there are a lot of people in the community who find that abhorrent, who just say no, that just could not be this case.

[2:52:34] Because you go out on the street, you see people in distress and you say see? Get these things on YouTube that have lots of hits, see? But you see, that’s not research. This was research. So if anybody wants to vote no on receiving the report, I suggest that you come up with a much better justification for why you’re not receiving it. Thank you very much. Other speakers to this. And it was asked to divide into two, there are two parts to receive the report.

[2:53:08] There’s request to Mayor and me also for more advocacy on the things within it. So go ahead, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you. I just want to share my thanks with staff and the agency for the work that they did on this report. I think it gives me as a Councillor information that I can share with the community. I know we, it means that we’ve got all the information, but it is information that we can share, understand. And as it relates to be in particular the advocacy to the provincial and federal governments, we as a municipality, we have the problem that we need the help.

[2:53:54] And I think that is something that every time we have this conversation around homelessness, housing, it really underlines the importance of the assistance that we need from other levels of government. So we’ll continue that app. Because seeing, thanks again for the work and providing us information that we can share. Okay, Councillor Preble, go ahead. Thank you. Thank you for the report. This report did have some valuable information that we can analyze and move forward.

[2:54:29] I would love to see in this report, for example, the coast and ED visits and hospitalization on every hospital as police would be able to share with us, but certainly would be a great benefit to us. The platform, I’m going back to the platform and I really encourage all of my colleagues that if there are certain things that potentially when you see there that’s missing there, please talk to our staff and talk to them sooner, the better. So we start with all the information and we can track it down. Going back to this, in terms of when we did the last, during the last meeting, when we introduced the matrix.

[2:55:08] And I do understand that we did, did not approve the fully budgeted amount for this. Having said that, if there are certain things that potentially already staff knows that would not be able to deliver, please advise us. So there is no expectation that we are getting all those items and all those matrix. I think the biggest issue is, and I know it’s, I’m going to stick to the whole of community system response. And as a council council, as we weren’t part of it from the beginning.

[2:55:40] Having said that, things happen, we move on. But I still don’t see us how we are working, council, staff, social agencies, community organizations, how we are actually working together and maximizing the opportunities for our community, for the half a million of Londoners. We can resolve everything during the standing committee meetings and then council, that’s not how it’s going to work. We really need to find a way how to work better and deliver overall the better results. Because again, we need to maximize our opportunities and we really have to improve on this.

[2:56:17] Think, rethink this. And yes, time went by. But again, let’s look forward. Let’s rethink this, how we are working together. Together is the staff, is the agencies. And I really hope that, and again, I’m not going to be passing an emotion. But if the staff can kind of revisit this and look forward and let’s see. There are certainly good things that happened. No doubt. But did we miss opportunities? Absolutely we did. Even just that, that we brainstormed together all three areas that we can do the best possible things.

[2:56:54] Thank you. Okay, that exhausts the speaker’s list. I was asked to divide this, there’s part A and a part B. Part A is the receive the report piece. Part B is the advocacy piece. So A first, I’m going to open A for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

[2:57:33] Okay, and part B will be next. That’s the advocacy piece we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. I’d like to move a 15 minute break if I could. Sure, that’s moved by Councillor McAllister, seconded by Councillor Barrera.

[2:58:08] I’m going to do it by hand, but hold your hands up just to make sure that we have the numbers. All those in favor, any opposed? That motion carries. All right, 15 minutes. Okay, thank you, please be seated.

[3:17:01] All right, thank you for entertaining that break. We’re back to Councillor Ferrer’s report and on to the next item, go ahead, Councillor. Thank you, Mayor. Last item that was pulled for the 14th report of the Communion Practice Services Committee was item 10, that’s 3.2 on the agenda. That’s the adequate and suitable cooling by-law at maximum temperature amendments to the AMPS by-law A54. I’ll put that on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor. I’ll look for speakers. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship.

[3:17:35] I asked for this to be pulled as I indicated at committee. I’m going to be voting against this. Well, Councillors may have different opinions. It’s my opinion that this is largely a virtue signaling by-law. I do not believe we are going to be able to adequately enforce it. I do believe that even with the reduced time that it would be in force and effect, that we actually create some mechanical issues in regard to how buildings are heated and cooled. And I also, honestly, as we heard at committee, the Residential Tenancies Act already covers a portion of this and so it is largely a redundant by-law.

[3:18:16] So both based on the ability of staff to adequately enforce the redundancy with the RTA and the fact that, you know, at the end of the day, the only way to say, well, we’re going to be able to enforce it is to add to the by-law complement, which we already have a considerable workload with and limited time and resources and a number of competing interests. I mean, we heard earlier in the discussion around garbage and renters and the ability to have property standards maintained adequately, that there are challenges there.

[3:18:52] I am not in favor of having a by-law on the books for the sake of having a by-law on the books. I’m not in favor of putting more resources into this, particularly when it does only speak to buildings where there’s air conditioning. And we know already it’s not within our purview to require landlords to implement air conditioning where it doesn’t exist. There are already clauses in people’s leases, so for all of those reasons, I won’t be supporting that. Councillor Trossa. Thank you.

[3:19:24] Through the chair, we had a very robust discussion about this, so along with some amendments at committee, I won’t report, I won’t repeat all the points I made. Other than to say, I think my position at the committee, which I lost was I wanted to see this by-law go a little further, that didn’t happen. So I’m just going to support this by-law. And I think to say that there are similar provisions under provincial law, so it’s redundant, really misses the point that in many instances, municipalities have concurrent jurisdiction with the province.

[3:19:57] We see that all the time, it’s not unusual. And the fact that there’s a provincial measure, as was pointed out, does not stop, does not disable a municipality from legislating in that area if it’s otherwise within its sphere of jurisdiction, which is clearly, which is clearly is. The next point I want to make is we have no way of enforcing it. Well, yes, we do. We have by-law enforcement, and if there are violations of the by-law, complaints can be made.

[3:20:32] And we’re seeing some improvements, we’ll see more, but we have by-laws, and they need to be followed. So to say this would be difficult to enforce. Well, unfortunately, we have a lot of by-laws on our books that are difficult to enforce. We won’t start mentioning some of them, because then it’ll be, I’ll go out of scope. Mary’s smiling, plus I don’t have that much time. But we just, we have to do what is in the interests of the health and safety and welfare of our residents.

[3:21:08] This by-law, as it is, does that, so I’m going to support it. And I think it’s as simple as that. People should be able to have proper temperature. This by-law doesn’t do that across the board, but it’s a really good start. So I’ll be supporting this, and I hope others do as well. Thank you. Any other speakers to this? Okay, seeing none. Oh, go ahead, Councillor Pribble.

[3:21:42] Thank you. I did not support this during the committee, and I will not support it at the council either. I’m not going to use maybe then red on them by-law, but there is a under-provincial level, under-provincial jurisdiction. This area is addressed, and just so you know, anyone who doesn’t have the sufficient cooling in their apartments, they can purchase a window or portable unit, which can be subtracted from the rent. And in addition, I think the effectiveness and the efficiency of us looking after this by-law, I think there will be a lot of times would be addressed at the later time that it won’t be addressed immediately.

[3:22:26] So I think that when we say that we have a lot of by-laws that we cannot really properly address, so this would be, let’s say, another one. But I really think the effectiveness efficiency, and it is in place, it’s not necessary. And I actually talked to quite a few people that are on limited income, and some of them told me, I think that if they don’t have the electricity utilities included in their rent, they feel that actually they’ll be paying, they’ll be the ones who are paying for it. And many of them told me that I’d rather pay more money, sorry, I don’t want to pay 12 months higher rent or cost me more money just for two months to have a comfort.

[3:23:06] Would it be nice to have a comfort those two months? They say no, they would not say that it wouldn’t be better having said that to pay for 12 months got on very fixed income. So I really don’t see a benefit of this, and I will be voted against it. Thank you. Go ahead, Councillor Ferriero. Thank you, Mayor. So I will be in support of this. I do see some of the concerns that are raised. I do see there is some hesitant support for some of the organizations that have brought in concerns, but I will say this, just from the report, there was a public engagement portion on that.

[3:23:44] 77% of respondents did say that they reported health issues or discomfort in the high indoor heat. So I do understand that there is a provincial component to this, but there is some discretionary ability for the city to take some action on this as well. It is not a complete separation between these two areas. So with that, this is as far as I’m concerned, a little bit of extra insurance, a little bit of extra support for people who are renting, especially when it comes to pretty hot days, especially in high rises or units that have multiple stories because heat does rise, it does stay there.

[3:24:20] So just to provide some extra help, some extra assistance, and it is for apartments that already have air conditioning already available. So it’s just to ensure that continues moving forward. So I will be supporting the committee recommendation. Okay, other speakers to this? Okay, seeing none, then we’ll open the committee recommendation for voting. Opposing the vote, motion fails, seven to eight.

[3:25:20] Okay, go ahead, Councilor. That concludes the 13th report or the 14th report of the Community Protective Services Committee. Then you get to do the next report too, so you can keep going. Yes, I do, Mayor. So for a special Community Protective Services Committee meeting, I will present the 15th report of CAHPS with one item, and that is with the micro modular shelter site. Okay, that’s on the floor.

[3:25:54] Look for speakers on this. Go ahead, Councilor Plaza. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I had pre-circulated a motion that was clerked, looking for that to be put up in the e-scribe. Would you like to be reading it out? Okay, I have a nod. So I would say the purpose with this was, I was a visiting counselor at the CAHPS committee meeting. I don’t serve on that committee. I had spoke with staff with questions at the committee meeting, so moving those points here. That civic administration be directed to bring a briefing note on the public agenda of the Community Protective Services Committee regarding agreements and contracts as they are finalized.

[3:26:38] J, civic administration be directed to have a discussion with the London Transit Commission in administration regarding Route 30 in terms of service frequency and any concerns. K, the civic administration be directed to arrange for optional site tours for members of Council and media prior to the opening of the micro modular shelter site. If you got a look for a seconder for that, Councilor Raman. Okay, that’s moved and seconded, so we’ll now on the amendment. And I’m gonna ask people, probably gonna be allowed to debate on this. Let’s keep this debate tight to these amendments, and then we’ll have a main motion to debate as well.

[3:27:14] Go ahead. Thank you. As I said, was a busy member to the CPSC committee. Ms. Ramaloo had spoke to these points, realizing this topic and this project is going quickly through Council and committee, just trying to keep all the conversations in one place for transparency with the public and for ourselves. I’ll note the staff was gonna bring a full report back and around and a Q1, Q2, was just looking for a briefing note of updates as they come, just for we’ll be apprised in the public as a decision points are reached.

[3:27:50] As for Jay, I know that we wear two hats in this space. So just making sure that London Transit Commission, that is the Chief Factory Route 30, is more of industrial route. So having some concerns from residents as well, looking to see if it’s gonna be changed, if and what kind of different, should there be any different increased service to that route or any concerns to make sure that they can bring them forward? And I know before in the past, we’ve looked for site tours, but this would have to be organized with the clerks, if a group of us wanted to go at a time to make sure that we avoided any quorum issues, but also used staff times efficiently to make sure the doors opened on time.

[3:28:30] That was the premise for it. If there’s any questions, happy to take them. Or as I said, Ms. Ramaloo is the one who answered them at committee. I didn’t have a question. I said, should someone have a question? She had answered them at committee. I’m good. I just wanted to make sure, ‘cause everybody was looking like, what was the question? I was like, I don’t remember hearing one. Okay, good. I have Councilor Ferra next. Thank you, Mayor. I support all the amendments here. I do have some questions just on the transit part. If we were to look into discussion with LTC for any enhancements on Route 30, would that preclude transportation services provided by the agencies to the site?

[3:29:33] I don’t know who’s gonna answer, Mr. Dickings, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. We would have to have those conversations with LTC and have those transportation discussions. I don’t think we would be precluding anything at this point. We’re looking at understanding the impacts and demand for transportation services, both for those that will be working in the space and those that will be accessing the services in those spaces. Okay, go ahead. Thank you.

[3:30:05] With that, if that is indeed the case and we are still gonna have transportation services provided by the agencies, and this would be an additional connection by enhancing the route there, then I would be in full support of that. The briefing note in support of that, obviously, I’d like to see as much information as possible and then the visit to the option for the site. I think that would be good for all of us to check that out, just to see how the operation looks and actually ask questions there. So I’m gonna support this amendment as it is in full and I’ll leave my comments there until I get to the main.

[3:30:42] Okay, Deputy Rose. Thank you, Your Worship and through you. I certainly don’t have a problem with a briefing note. We did hear a committee that the intent would be to bring forward a complete report sometime in the new year, but getting the contracts as they’re finalized through briefing note out to act to me, that’s actually a better way to receive the information rather than wait for it all at once. If we just get it as we go, that’s absolutely fine. With respect to the transit commission, I’m not gonna oppose the amendment.

[3:31:15] I will say since the transit commission is seven members of individuals who are sitting in this chamber, I don’t think it’s necessary to provide a direction. I think that transit could reach out to staff as well. However, I’m not gonna quibble over including that in this motion. I just think for me, I’m cautious when I hear colleagues talking about transit enhancements. I don’t think that the desire should be to have transit providing a shuttle service to and from downtown for folks who are seeking help at this site all day long.

[3:31:52] One of the reasons I’m supportive of this is because of the remoteness and because of the success I saw at Fanshawe Golf Course several years ago when we did the trailer setups. This should not be a site where transit service is easy and accessible so that negative influences have easy access to the site as well. That’s part of the attraction for me of the remoteness. Now, workers being able to get to and from shifts, absolutely we need to look at that and make sure that that’s a viable option. So I’m cautious but I’m willing to support this. But I’m sharing right now my reservation on this is that this should not be a site that’s seeing service enhanced for the sake of people being able to come and go easily.

[3:32:37] This should be a question around whether people who are providing services on site are able to get to and from work. That to me is the question here. And with regard to the optional site tours again, I don’t think that’s necessarily something that we need to have in direction. But again, I’m not going to oppose the direction being there. I think given the attention that this has received, we would want to show the media of the site before we start bringing people in anyway. And if counselors want to be part of those site visits, I have no issue. I shared a committee that I actually visited the Fanshawe Golf Course site when it was in operation.

[3:33:12] Well, people who were living there. I’m not a chance to talk to them about their experiences. If counselors want to peek at these things before they open, I don’t have any issue with that. I mean, I think that that’s one that could just happen, that it wouldn’t require direction. But again, if the counselor wants it in writing, in this case, given the high level of interest in this issue, I’m not going to oppose and vote against it, I’ll support it. I just think that some of these things could be just dealt with through discussions with staff or LTC commissioners coming forward on their own. But again, in writing, I don’t have a problem with these.

[3:33:50] Any other speakers to the amendment? Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I appreciate the three amendments. I just have one amendment to this amendment that I’d like to make in keeping with our commitment to accountability and transparency. And that is changing the word regarding to with the, so that we get the contracts as they’re signed. That’s in I.

[3:34:28] Just for the public, I’ll say it’s that a specific administration be directed a briefing note on the public agenda of the Community and Protective Services Committee. Currently, it says regarding agreements and contracts as they are finalized. And I’m saying with the agreements and contracts as they are finalized. I just want to— I can’t do a friendly amendment, but I don’t know if that is exactly what Councillor Ploza was intending or not. I just want to know if that’s the case, because I could try a quick process if it’s not— It was not my intention. I appreciate it.

[3:34:59] I just don’t know how big these agreements all are. Some of them have confidential pieces to them about payment or safety concerns. So it was really just looking for the briefing note. I don’t know how much of the contracts would be redacted. I was trying to keep it simple and quick. OK, so that’s different. So OK, so that’s an amendment to the amendment on the change in the word regarding to with the agreements. Your worship?

[3:35:44] I don’t know if staff could be of assistance with drafting it, realizing it might need to contain if not confidential or— OK, I’m going to see. So we might need that some language. But I want to see if there’s a second or for this first, if there is, then I can. OK, there is. I just want to make sure we cover ourselves in the language for any legal obligations we have. I don’t know if with that is sufficient or whether you need something else. Go ahead.

[3:36:19] Thank you, and through you. My only hesitation is if there are confidential matters in the contracts. Some of it might have to be brought in camera rather than as a briefing note. Yeah, and it’s undirected whether they’re brought public or in camera. So I guess if it has confidential pieces, you’d land them in that appropriate spot. So OK, so that motion or the amendment I’m going to say can stand. It’s moved and seconded. So we’ll now move to debate on the amendment to the amendment and just that piece.

[3:36:52] So go ahead. OK, anybody who wants to speak to the amendment to the amendment? OK, then go ahead. Then I will just say that my experiences across civic administration, we usually do get the contracts. This is in line with our commitment to accountability and transparency. If things have to be in close session, everybody understands that. But rather than just a briefing note, I think it’s good to have the contracts. We get photocopier contracts.

[3:37:25] We get all kinds of things. Even just recently, we were able to get the contracts for different shelter arrangements. And people do expect those to be transparent to the public. So to whatever degree we can, I’d like to have counsel support in that. Go ahead, Councillor Troso. I thought the word regarding was very elegant and well-chosen, because it leaves a lot of discretion to staff regarding pertaining to, about, with respect to.

[3:38:03] And I think that’s what we’re looking for, not going down to the granular level of saying with these particular documents, which can just raise a whole other series of potential problems. So I’d be inclined to vote against the amendment. And I think the word regarding is a well-chosen word. So let’s meet it. Thank you. OK, any other speakers to the amendment to the amendment? Go ahead, Councillor Pribble. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Chair, to the staff. Some months ago— and I know I said this last week as well— the staff did a great report in terms of evaluating certain agencies, what they delivered, how much the costs were, and kind of a comparative analysis, which I thought stopped at a fantastic job.

[3:38:52] Then there were some changes. And those changes that I was hoping that the Council was going to direct and agree with what I was proposing to update it. So there’s a continuity and current future Councillors. They know exactly what was delivered, et cetera. So the reason why I’m asking for these contracts more than ever before is if the Council— if some other Councillors, if they don’t mind seeing it, I do like to see it to do my own comparative analysis. If there is the word regarding— how— the proper question— how can you make me more comfortable that those details in terms of services and costs will be included in the word regarding?

[3:39:45] Go ahead. Thank you. Through your worship. So what we would be bringing back in the memo, or if it’s on the agenda in the report, would be very similar to what we bring forward for any of our contract awards, the vendor, what the contract was for, and the amounts, and any other pertinent details. Thank you, Mr. Chair. One follow-up, and in terms of services being delivered. Would they be included as well? Mr. Diggins.

[3:40:19] Through you, your worship, we would provide the standard form, executed contracts, and all the applicable schedules as necessary. Thank you. Sorry, just for clarity, Mr. Diggins. You do that with the word regarding, or with the language that’s on the floor, because that was kind of the root of the council’s question originally. Thank you, Your Worship. So we plan on entering into using standard form template agreements. So if we’re to come back to every caps when we execute an agreement, we would use related or otherwise. It’s not a— either way for us, we’re going to have one standard form agreement.

[3:40:55] We will publish that with the applicable schedules. Thank you. One more last question, Mr. Diggins. So when you and your team, when they put together that two-pager, which, as I said, was very positive, was great, the information you would provide now, I would be able to input those details in terms of services provided, so my table would be complete. Go ahead. Through you, Your Worship, I’m not sure I understand. I’ll throw it to Mr. Cooper, perhaps he can answer that one.

[3:41:37] Mr. Cooper. Thank you, and through Your Worship. All of our contract details, so agency-expected services, are outlined in our schedule B of our contract. So I’m not exactly sure what the counselor compares, but we would include all contracted services and the details in schedule B. If there’s something specific he’s looking for, we can maybe take this offline and have a conversation. Thank you, Mr. Chair, one last follow-up. But if it’s regarding, if it’s going to be with the agreement, if it’s going to be regarding the agreement, are you going to include in regarding the appendix B information?

[3:42:22] Thank you, and through Your Worship, as Mr. Diggins indicated, the wording is irrelevant. We will include the information that is in our executed contracts, and we’d ensure that no specific confidential information is included in those contracts moving forward. Thank you very much, no more questions? Okay, go ahead, Councillor Flosa. Thank you, through you, to staff, roughly, estimating, estimating. How many potential contracts might be involved with this micro hub, and on average, how many pages does the average contract?

[3:42:58] Just looking to see the depth of data that we’re looking at getting back and having to sort through. Whoever wants to go with this one, go ahead. Thank you, through Your Worship. Easily a dozen. By the time we use various city contracts for items that we already have a procurement completed for like fencing, like security lighting, like site prep, then we get into shelters, there’s all kinds of things, so it could be quite a few. And the second part of the question, Mr. Mayor, of how many pages, on average, is one of these contract things?

[3:43:34] Recognizing that they might vary a little bit, okay, go ahead. Thank you, through Your Worship. That is going to vary quite a bit. My understanding from colleagues, they can speak to service contracts, but they’re maybe smaller, some of our construction contracts are actually quite large. So there would be quite a difference in those. What we can do is sometimes we will refer to them as being on record and available upon request. Thank you. Are we hearing like two pages per contract, or like 50 to 100 pages per contract?

[3:44:09] 25, 30? Thank you, Your Worship. I’m going to say it’s, yeah, in that range, some could be two and some could be upwards of 50 or more. Thank you. I appreciate if they’re around and available to us. I would say if each contract coming back and potentially a dozen of them are arranging, we’ll say 30 pages each, 50 each or more. At that point, this report’s getting bigger than a PEC report, which can take you the full weekend to read also concerned about not so much the information being there, just the length of discussions and decisions that had already been made as executed by staff and the powers given to them.

[3:44:51] So that’s my main concerns about it and why I didn’t have in the original motion and I tabled it. Okay, other speakers to the amendment to the amendment. Okay, so this is just changing the word regarding. Okay, regarding is going to change to with the, that’s the amendment we’re on. So I’m going to open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion fails six to nine.

[3:45:55] Okay, so back to the original amendment for speakers to that. See any? So this is, Councilor blows his amendment with the three pieces. We’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[3:46:32] Okay, now you’re willing to move the as amended motion. Chair, I need a seconder for the as amended motion. Councilor, close it, thank you. Okay, with debate on the as amended motion, I’ll look for any discussion. Okay, go ahead, Councilor Stevenson. Thank you. I would like to have D voted on separately. And I’m wondering, there was some talk about a section for recovery or a sober section.

[3:47:07] I’m wondering if there’s any more information available on that or if there’s any consideration of making this a spot where people could go out of detox or who aren’t suffering from addiction, that they could get away from the core area drug scene and be able to have some respite out further on the edges of our city. So is that a possibility for us to make that designation or is that something being considered by staff? Okay, Mr. Jenkins, go ahead.

[3:47:40] Thank you, Worship. We are in the early planning stages at this point in terms of site plan and looking at how we can scale this up. We understand the challenges are going to exist and there are going to be many. There’s going to be more challenges than solutions on October 14th and that’s gonna be a reality that carries us through to opening day. We’ve heard from a number of frontline agencies, community experts, outside experts, other municipalities that have shared their thoughts and obstacles that we need to overcome, including how we design the space, how we create space for all sorts of people.

[3:48:18] We know the motivation is to get people indoors, especially as the winter elements come and provide safe supportive shelter for those folks. We are looking at trying to land a service delivery model, service provider framework and it would be way too early in that process to start making commitments about who’s gonna be selected, who’s going to choose to come, what type of supports will be available. We are working day to day on that work and we expect that we will hit the ground running, but it would be too early to make a determination on number of units, location of those units, different providers for those units on what that looks like.

[3:48:56] We know that we are trying to support the whole person. Those that need access and want access to recovery services, that happens every day. We just debated a report that talked about how the House of Hope connects people to recovery and treatment. We expect that this space would be no different than that. Councilor Stevenson. Thank you. I guess what I hear on a regular basis is that people coming out of our detox beds, warriors who commit to five to 10 days and are able to detox themselves from drugs do not have access to a sober shelter.

[3:49:29] Our highly supportive housing is not an area that is free of drug use nor are most of our social housing buildings. So being able to get away from the drugs, even to access to free meal is oftentimes meaning walking through people actively using illegal substances. So it’s a concern that I hear about a lot. This seems like an opportunity to provide that much needed and desired access. I’m not gonna bring forward emotion right now. I don’t think it would pass and it sounds like it would add an extra hurdle, but I do think that this idea that we offer recovery all the time, what I hear is there isn’t anything.

[3:50:08] We’ve got a few spaces at Quinton Warner for men. There’s a few rehab places outside the city, but we do not have what the province has committed to in terms of a recovery oriented system of care. Where people who are walking out a very long road to recovery have spaces where they can live that are free of illegal drug use. And I think that’s something that I would really like to see this council commit to going forward. I have a question around exit strategy as well, because there’s talk of this site only being available for two, maybe three years maximum.

[3:50:46] And there was also the mention that there was no other site that was able to be shared. So what is the exit strategy given that most other cities who’ve done this have found that there hasn’t been an end to this type of shelter site? Mr. Dickens. Thank you, worship. And if I may have the previous comment, we understand and appreciate the need for recovery services. This council has been very vocal in their endorsement to ask the provincial government to create the free public access recovery services.

[3:51:19] And so we echo that sentiment that we need more recovery services in our community. I think the ask for city staff to create a municipally run a recovery center in 60 days would be too tall to ask. So we appreciate your understanding in that regard. As far as the exit strategy goes from day one, we want to make sure that we’re trying to put people on the best path to housing as possible. So from day one, we’re looking at your exit strategy, understanding some folks may need a quick touch in a short stay and others may be there in two years. And we’re taking the time between now and the end of that journey to make sure we’re moving them to a better place of sustainability and stability to get into the right and proper support.

[3:52:01] Perhaps one of those recovery beds will open up in that period of time as well. But we want to make sure that from day one, we’re trying to support people into the next step of their recovery journey or their housing journey. As far as the exit plan or the transition plan for the site itself, I would defer to my colleagues around the site. Go ahead. Thank you through your worship. So as we’ve mentioned before, this land is actually slated for industrial development in a couple of years. So at that point, we would be looking at removing the existing micromodular shelters in the other buildings, anything that was rented would be returned, anything that we own.

[3:52:41] We would be looking for a site to store or reuse on or possibly sell depending on the circumstances that we find ourselves in in two years. Go ahead. Thank you. Just as a follow up to that and I appreciate it. Is there any advantage to us adding an amendment here asking for that exit strategy to come forward to council knowing that we don’t want to be in a place where that has to close and we don’t have another place and given the trouble we’ve had finding locations? I’m just wondering how proactively we can be. I know you got your hands full right now, but next year or something like that, could it come to us with plans for next steps?

[3:53:34] Thank you through your worship. So what we’re really looking at is either we don’t need it anymore, which would be amazing or we need a permanent site. So this would then either be directions through 20, 20 some budget amendment or the next multi-year budget to look at what the next phase looks like. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. I just want to clarify too, there seems to be some confusion around the recovery. This has happened the entire three years of my term of council where whenever I say recovery, people say, well, that’s provincial healthcare. I’m talking about housing that is drug free, right?

[3:54:12] Places for people to walk out their sober commitment that where they’re not subjected to people who are using illegal drugs. And I think that’s part of the recovery oriented a system of care that the province and that Alberta is modeling is a long-term vision to support recovery in our community. People come out a 30-day rehab where they come out of five to 10-day detox. They have a long road ahead of them and to be able to provide a space, a space, a pathway without gaps where we’re not sending people back to the streets into shelters that people are still saying are unsafe, where we have harm reduction, we know we’re handing out needles and things in our social housing buildings, we’re handing them out everywhere, not everywhere, but in a lot of places that there was a path that people who are committed to that journey could walk out on their own without us putting hurdles in front of them.

[3:55:12] That’s really what I’m looking for, is a place where if they choose to do it, they are able to do it in an affordable way, right? Within our shelter system, within our transitional housing, within our housing. So, I’m very happy to see an alternate location, to see it towards the edge of the city. Many people have been saying that, as the deputy mayor said, there’s a lot of people who don’t want to be in the core area with all of its issues. So this is a great option.

[3:55:47] I just cannot support the funding from the property tax surplus, right? Your short— - Your time is up, Councillor. Other speakers, go ahead, Councillor Lehman. Thank you, I just have to do up my jack, ‘cause I spilled coffee on my shirt, so I apologize. (laughing) That’s right, he got a photo already before. It’s super tall, right?

[3:56:18] Yeah, here we go. Listen, I just want to comment on this. The deputy mayor spoke of our experiences. The last time we did something similar to this, it’s not the first time we’ve tried something like this. Back in the last term, we had a winter response that was out at Fanshawe Golf Course, and similar concerns were raised at the time about taking people out of their community, away from services and putting them farther away from the downtown core.

[3:56:50] At that time, it was Councillor Lewis, and that deputy mayor Lewis, and myself, went out a few months into it. We spent a couple hours out there actually, engaging in a really good discussion with the folks that were there, and we asked them the hard questions. We asked the questions that we heard were being asked of us when it was being challenged, and specifically, it was some people feel that you’re being taken away from the community, and it’s not fair.

[3:57:23] What do you think? Overwhelming, they said thank you. And the reason was safety. They felt downtown in their environment, they weren’t safe. They weren’t safe from physical violence, they weren’t safe from the bag characters that prey on those with addictions or mental health issues, or they’re just generally homeless. And what comes up, it was a great discussion with these gentlemen, ‘cause what came out after that was, so why does that mean anything?

[3:57:57] Well, it lowered their anxiety, and once their anxiety was lowered, it opened the door to having good discussions about recovery or services that were available to help them transition off the street, in fact, so much, so that in that very short time, this was only a winter response, two gentlemen actually gained employment where the employer drove there, picked them up, taken the work, brought them back, which they hadn’t had for years.

[3:58:31] So I’m very happy to see this measure coming forward. I’m excited about it. It’s another alternative to what we provide now, which a lot of it’s in the corner, and Councilor Frank mentioned that as well. It’s another tool that we can use to address this very complex problem of homelessness that we’ve been working as a council now, diligently with staff, ever since we’ve been elected here. So, traffic to CIO, and I think we’re gonna learn a lot, and I think it might open the doors to other possibilities, so I’ve definitely missed more.

[3:59:13] Other speakers for this, Councilor Ferra, go ahead. Thanks, Mayor, I should speak to this. So, working on this and speaking to members of my ward and constituents of my ward, I’ve been hearing a lot of people screaming for help, saying we need more capacity, we need locations to identify, to actually place that additional capacity, and it’s an ongoing conversation all the time. I said this at committee, but I probably put in like 70% of my time with our response to homelessness, as my roles here, as a Councilor.

[3:59:54] And it is a big thing that is on the top of mind for everybody, all the time, especially people who are on the front lines. This motion that came from the mayor and has been discussed at committee, and I was being discussed now, this comes from necessity, and it comes from our experience. We need more space, we need more capacity, and our experience has been informed, and I said this at committee as well, of where we can place extra supports, extra capacity without potentially failing in that regard, because as we can see, the discussion here is a complex one, and that complexity can involve both the negative aspects and the positive aspects.

[4:00:41] So to be able to move this through and actually bring something to fruition that will actually help us, with the lowest amount of risk is why you see this recommendation the way it is from committee. In the end, the matter is, is where are people gonna go? And that is the main thing that’s always being discussed in my ward. We have a lot of people who have nowhere to go, there’s a lot of restricted spaces in the city where people can’t go, and we’re just trying to open that up, because right now, and we’ve said this before, the status quo, right now, the situation that is out on the street is much worse than it could be if we brought something like this.

[4:01:24] So this is why I’m supporting this. I also said that the location, and I hear the concerns about location, what’s the ideal place to prop something like this up, there is gonna be no ideal place. We’re always gonna find issues with every single location that we discuss, every single location that we identify, there will always be there. But I said this at committee, we can make up for that in the operation. How do we operate the micro shelter site? How do we operate? And that can mitigate the issues with location. The transportation services, as we’ve discussed, those transportation services is a huge mitigation factor.

[4:01:59] For any issues where we might be, it might look like we are disconnecting people from their home turf, from grounds, from friends, from communities. If we have that transportation portion in there, we won’t be doing that. With the onsite laundry, we’ve had discussions on that too. We have to have onsite laundry obviously at this location. We need other things that need to be involved in that as well, would be the pathways to housing. This is not just a place for shelter, this is a place where we’re also gonna be plugging in those connections to help people get paper ready for help people find supports from agencies to get people connected to other pathways to housing.

[4:02:40] So it’s more than just a shelter. It is going to be operating with as much support as we can possibly give to it. But in the end, it’s something that we’re doing now. It’s something that’s needed now, and I have a full ward of individuals who are looking for any help that we can get. My only concern, and I said this at the committee as well, is the temporary nature of the site. I understand the site is temporary, and I’m concerned when we discuss this again, there’s a potential chance we could lose this capacity, and we may just be stuck in a discussion to find a new location to put these 60 sites, or these 60 micro shelters.

[4:03:19] We need to really talk about additional capacity. That’s my concern, obviously that’s not gonna stop me supporting this motion as it is right now. But in the end, like if we are having a discussion on this site and where to potentially place it in the next iteration, when we should be talking about that additional capacity, that’s where my concerns are. I would love to see us not have to use the micro shelter site. I would love to have that, but the foreseeable future, I think we can all agree that that’s probably not very likely.

[4:03:54] 30 seconds. So I’m in full support of this recommendation from committee, and I hope that we can support it here because I have thousands of people who are looking for any extra help that we can provide, and they did send their comments to the council agenda, and I know there’s way more people that would be sent in their comments as well. So I’ll leave it there ‘cause I’m running out of time, but I hope that we can get support for this. I’ll go to Councilor McAllister. Thank you, and through the mayor, appreciate all the work that’s gone into this.

[4:04:29] I know a quick turnaround time. One of the ways that I’m viewing this whole discussion too is I very much view the micro-modular shelter. It’s, I’m viewing this from an emergency management lens, and I appreciate the comments that Mr. Latiser made a committee recognizing that declaring a state of emergency isn’t necessarily gonna get you any additional resources, but I very much view the situation we’re in as an emergency. We’ve heard a number of speakers already spoken in terms of the capacity issues that were constantly facing their shelter system. I mean, I previously asked that we engage with the province to try to boost our shelter capacity, but it is something I hear time and time again, and we need to provide some net new spaces, recognizing that there’s a whole housing continuum, and this is just one component of that.

[4:05:13] We need to get various types of housing online. And for me, and I said this at committee, speed is really at the heart of this, and that’s why I’ve always kind of been drawn to the modular option. I’m sure we’ve all got emails from different providers. I’ve lost count of how many unsolicited proposals from AMOL or FCM were different providers. This is definitely a space where you’re seeing a lot of movement in Canada, not just on shelters, but on a modular building for more permanent structures as well. So I definitely think this is a space that we have to consider, recognizing also the Unity project took the first steps to running one of those operations.

[4:05:49] So I think, again, a lot of lessons to be learned, but I really do think we have to try something like this. I think it’s also important to recognize in terms of the conversation. We are saying temporary, but these are things that could be moved. I do think we have to keep something like a micro shelter on hand. I know, as we progress through this, I think that’s a conversation maybe emergency management wants to have, with natural disasters, becoming much more frequent. Probably good to have some sort of emergency sites that you can put together quite quickly in a situation like this.

[4:06:21] Not necessarily exclusive to homelessness, but just saying that that’s something also to consider. I do, again, just want to thank the mayor. Also, Councillor Friend, Councillor Preble, I know the quick communities was another thing that was put on the radar earlier in the term, but I really think that this is a space that we have to consider. We have to try it. Obviously, we’re going to learn along the way as we have done throughout many of our responses to homelessness, but I do think we absolutely need to try this. I think it gives people another option in a location where we might not previously have to consider, but it’s something, again, we need to try and then we can adjust accordingly.

[4:06:59] And hopefully we can get those resources the next couple of years and conversations with the province and the federal government. Still hopeful we’ll see some more dollars on that front and get other services online. So the need for this reduces over time. Thank you. Thank you, other speakers. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. So I’m not going to repeat really anything that anyone has said so far. Other than while we talk about the temporary nature, I think it’s also incumbent upon us to remember that this is not the only thing we are doing.

[4:07:37] Very soon, the first building in the Vision SoHo redevelopment will start receiving occupants. When that site is fully built out, there will be 700-ish new units of housing there. Over 380 of them will be of various types of affordable. There will be the 80% AMR, there will be the RGI, there will be highly supportive housing on that site. 380 new units of affordable housing coming online. The redevelopment of the Elmwood site and another highly supportive housing location in Ward 11, I believe, will be coming online thanks to the work that’s been done within well with our private sector partners who donated the land for this use and the ongoing work Mr. Felberg’s team is doing to help stand that up.

[4:08:26] London Middlesex Community Housing will very soon be moving tenants in to the first new build in 50 years. And the second new build, the foundation is already poured and the building is already rising above grade at the reimagined sale at their location. So this is one piece. And yes, we’re calling it temporary because there’s a whole lot of other pieces that we’re doing right now to address the housing crisis in the city, both in general housing affordability terms as well as specifically in the income gap where we have the affordable, the rent care to income and the highly supportive needs.

[4:09:02] So things are happening, but those buildings don’t get built overnight. And so this to me is a stop gap solution. I do not share any concerns about the remoteness of the location. I think this is a great location because of its remoteness. And Councillor Layman spoke to that already and I spoke to it at committee. So I’m not going to repeat myself there either. I do have a couple of feedback pieces, I guess I’m going to offer to staff right now. I have had an opportunity to have a conversation, at least by email with Mr. Dickens quickly.

[4:09:39] I appreciate the answers he provided to me. I do think though, as we move forward and not looking to provide direction or anything, I know we’re putting these pieces together as we go right now. A good solid guest management policy is going to be crucial. And we have seen in other municipalities, these successful ones are very limited or no guest policies. So I really encourage staff to keep that in mind because even controlled entry can let that drug dealer onto the site. So we have to be very, very, very aware and very, very cautious about who’s getting in and out of that site every day.

[4:10:21] So a really strong vital guest management policy is going to be necessary. I also want to encourage for discussion. And again, I’m supporting this, I’m not providing staff any direction today on it. But I’m putting this out there now because it happens in other locations. And it is possible that once a guest is on a social assistance benefit that they are charged a small nominal fee to be living there. Could be $25. But if they’re getting a $400 shelter allowance for ODSP or for OW, then there should be an expectation of a small contribution back because if the goal is housing stability, they need to start thinking about and start expecting that someday they’re going to be paying rent to live someplace and that’s going to be coming out of their assistance benefits.

[4:11:09] It won’t impact their daily lives right now, but that is a start towards a level of responsibility. And I come back to what I said earlier. We can’t talk about housing as a right without talking about housing as a responsibility. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand, folks. So I think that it’s really incumbent upon us to think about a very nominal fee that starts the pattern, that starts the education of the importance of budgeting for a small rent fee each month. Those are a couple of the points that I wanted to share.

[4:11:42] I know that as we develop out this in more detail, we’re going to be looking at things. I know we’re not talking about 30 seconds, six rows of 10 houses. I know we’re talking about pods where we will have people with different demographics in different locations on the site. There’s going to be security, all of those things. So I’m going to be supportive of this, but I just wanted to share those thoughts with staff as they move forward on this project and develop it out more. Councilor Raman. Thank you and through you. And I’ll keep my comments short. First, I want to say thank you again to staff to Mayor Morgan and to other counselors who have been working on motions that have led us down this path and in this direction.

[4:12:20] I’m supportive of where we’re going. I will just say, I agree with Deputy Mayor Lewis. I do think that we need to look at some of those, the rules associated. And I’m wondering what that might look like in a report back to a committee. Ms. Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m just for clarification. Is the council asking us to bring back a report to caps on all of the rules in this space or? Let me get some clarification. Go ahead. Sorry for clarification.

[4:12:52] We’ll be in the briefing note. Maybe online what you’re the piece you’re looking for. I think that’s the part that maybe wasn’t quite. Sure, any rules around occupancy similar to what Deputy Mayor said around gas management policies, any other potential rules and what are the potential implications if the rules aren’t followed? Go ahead. Through you, Your Worship. Yes, some of it will be defined through the service contract, for sure.

[4:13:26] But other pieces we can bring back to councils and update. I think Mr. Lautzer and Ms. Ramalu are going to have other updates. They want to provide as well in terms of the site and some of the operations. There’ll be a lot of information to cover, no doubt, but we can provide the operational plan updates, for sure. Thank you. And can a person that has not been able to access shelters elsewhere because of potentially losing their ability to occupy said shelter, would they be able to access this location?

[4:14:10] Through you, Your Worship. I don’t want to speculate here. We need to work with community partners and experts to identify the folks that can move in here. Our ultimate goal is to create a safe and secure space. That is going to be challenging no matter how we slice it. No matter how we design it, no matter how we staff it, this space is not going to be without challenges. We will have issues. We are going to make sure we mitigate those issues with the neighbors, with the staff, with the participants. That might not even be enough.

[4:14:42] I’m sure your inboxes are going to fill up from time to time with this space. But we want to make sure that when we are working with community experts to identify people that can move from where they’re currently living outdoors to these indoor spaces, we’re doing it to balance safety and security, to make sure we’re putting people in a position to be successful. So some of those people will absolutely be folks that have not been successful or unable to access traditional services. There may be people that have opted not to attend or use those services for various reasons that this provides an alternative to them that they desire.

[4:15:22] There will be some that have not been able to access the traditional shelter system who still wish not to attend this site for its remoteness, for its lack of social connection to their friends and for the relationships they have in this community. But ultimately we’re looking at a mix of people to provide a balance of safety and security and make sure we’re putting people in a position to be successful. Sorry for the long-winded answer, Councillor Romer. Thank you, I appreciate long-winded answers. So I just wanted to ask your follow-up on the conversation around the nominal fee.

[4:16:00] Would that come back to us in a briefing report or would we receive an update on what that might end up being? Through you, worship, I think we’ll take this away and look at what a report back to community looks like. It’s becoming a very detailed operational plan at this point with contracts and agreements. So yes, we can start to scope out what a report back to Council looks like in terms of that operational plan.

[4:16:31] So some of the guidelines, some of the rules, where we land in terms of service provisions, service models, and then any nominal fee or shelter allowance recovery that may or may not be a part of that. Those conversations are happening between city staff and the appropriate ministry at this time. I’ll just let Council know. So what Council desires and what the ministry desires may be two different things, but you’re in good hands with city staff. This is the work we do every day. Thank you. I won’t, I don’t wanna add another layer to say perhaps we could get a briefing note on the briefing note, but there might be some value in kind of just having some of those background conversations with staff just to provide more of the, what are we looking for?

[4:17:15] And just through these discussions, I know that that helps so that we can flesh out what it is that we would need for more information, the briefing note. Overall, very supportive of the direction that we’re heading in. I appreciate those that went first, that did this on their own, that put the time in. And that continued to remind us that this is temporary and this is not housing and we have more work to do because I think that ultimately that is very important. Last thing I wanna say, we talked a little bit about volunteers and we talked a little bit about the community wanting to help in temporary winter temperature related shelter, but we didn’t really scope out what that could look like here.

[4:17:56] So maybe in the briefing note on the briefing note, we can talk about that too. Oh, you’re gonna get an answer, even though that wasn’t a question. Go ahead, I don’t know if it was a question, but I’ll provide an answer. Absolutely, we can contain that in the briefing note as well. Realizing that volunteers can only provide so much capacity. Obviously we wanna rely on experts dealing with vulnerable people and so forth, but certainly there’s a role that that could be played and we’ll report back on that. Okay, thanks, other speakers.

[4:18:30] Go ahead, Councillor Privel. Thank you. I’m very happy with the proposal that’s in front of us. As I mentioned during the Standing Committee meeting, I believe I love our housing spectrum and I believe the right side, the long term as both mentioned here are so at other residential units, it’s very positive, the left side where we had the encampments and then we had the hubs, this goes in between and very supportive of it and I’m glad to hear kind of the honesty in terms of the challenges because absolutely there will be, but I hope that through the proper case management, we are gonna minimize these occurrences and we are gonna get people back on track that the sixth day will actually become, I think, a couple of years more than sixth day because there will be more spaces created for other ones.

[4:19:21] Thank you. Any other speakers? I have myself on the list, so I’ll turn it over to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship, I will take the chair and recognize the mayor. Okay, I’ll say a few words on this, I’m not gonna say I’m gonna be brief ‘cause it’s probably not true. First, I wanna thank our staff. So I issued a direction to bring something before our council in a really short timeframe and I wanna say you executed on that really well. I know there’s still a lot of questions.

[4:19:55] I know there’s still a lot of challenges to address, but going from a direction to actually getting something before a committee that is viable, functional, has a plan, a direction. I just wanna say I wanna thank you and all of the community partners who actually supported that work and will continue to support that work. I also wanna thank, ‘cause this work reminds us that there are frontline agencies who are dealing with this every single day, right? And the work is not getting easier by any stretch of the means.

[4:20:28] With homelessness rising in the province 25%, this work is not only incredibly important, it’s exhausting, it’s tiring, it’s hard, and there are people out there who are doing this every single day. So I know council is aware of that and I just wanted to take a moment to thank them and their staff for the work they do, I know it is challenging to do and it’s greatly appreciated. So the site, the site is not ideal, right? It’s not an ideal site, there is no ideal site. And what else is not ideal is when homelessness is going up in the province by 25%.

[4:21:03] It’s not ideal that people don’t have the right level of social assistance to find housing. It’s not ideal that housing is expensive. It’s not ideal that we can’t build enough affordable housing quick enough. It’s not ideal that we have people actually sleeping on our streets. It’s not ideal that we have drugs in our community that people are addicted to. It’s not ideal that we don’t have enough mental health supports or treatment and recovery supports. The ideal solution all this is housing, for the most part, housing and healthcare solutions. And as we continue to work on that and need the province’s leadership on that and the federal government, we have to continue to make decisions to do the parts that we can do to help the situation as much as we possibly can with the resources that we have and the capacity that we have.

[4:21:48] And so this is one of, as the deputy mayor said, many things that we need to be considering and need to be doing. And I want to thank my colleagues for the thoughtful debated committee around this. I want to recognize the questions and challenges that some colleagues have with this. Size of the site, location of the site, community consultation. None of these things are ideal, right? ‘Cause we’re trying to move quickly. We’re trying to move quickly because people are going to be out in the cold. People are going to be unsheltered. People are going to be hungry. And we want to help some of those people as quickly as we possibly can. So it’s not going to be an ideal situation, but for a number of individuals, it’s going to be very, very helpful.

[4:22:26] It’s going to be more than we were doing yesterday. And so I also want to recognize that the design of the site is incredibly important in this endeavor, right? We have to take all of the things that we’ve learned from every other community that’s done this and people in this city who have expertise to say with a situation that is not ideal, how do we make it the best possible experience for the people who are going there, for the workers who have to support them? And ultimately for the pathways to housing and the housing providers that hopefully will be able to take some of these people through a site like this and into permanent stable housing.

[4:23:02] And I want us not to back away from the fact that there’s a lot of challenges to even get this off the ground still. Like we can have a vote today and we can set the approval, but we need to find providers, we need to procure the resources, we need permission from the Ministry of Transportation Ontario and our staff are working on all that in the background. There’s a number of hurdles in place still. And then any point staff may come back and say we’ve hit a really big hurdle and we’re going to have some decision-making to make at that point in time.

[4:23:35] But I want to commend us for taking a step forward and trying something. Trying something based on what other people have learned, trying something based on the need in our community, trying something based on the challenges and feedback that we’ve given so far and our continued commitment to actually improving as we go. We’ve done this with everything we’ve stepped into. If we work through the winter and there are a number of challenges at play, we’ll make decisions based on those challenges and we’ll make adjustments. And if we go through the summer and there are other challenges that come up through that, we’ll make adjustments. But at least we have a plan and a structure that we can work within that we can continue to make better as we go along.

[4:24:12] I have only got 30 seconds left. I’m going to just wrap up by saying, I don’t expect this to be perfect, but I do think that we have to do something. I appreciate council’s support in this. I’ll certainly be strongly supporting the motion and I will be there every step of the way to support the adjustments, the advocacy and all the pieces that we have to do along the way to make this as successful as possible, knowing that the whole situation is not ideal, but we’ll do the best we can and we’ll try to make some lives better in this community through this process. I was five minutes on the dot online timer.

[4:24:46] So that’s what happens when you have a good clerk beside you who tells you, so I’ll return the chair to you. All right, any other speakers on this? Okay, then we have a motion before us. I can open that for voting. Oh, sorry, my apologies. Councilor asked for D to be separate. So we’ll deal with D first and then we’ll deal with the balance of the motion. So I’ll open D for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

[4:25:28] And on the balance of the motion, everything else, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Councilor? - That concludes the 15th report of the Community and Protective Services Committee. Thank you. - Great report, thank you. Onto the report of the Planning and Environment Committee. That’s item 8.5 in our agenda. I’ll turn it over to Councillor Layman to present that report.

[4:26:02] And I’ll recognize Councillor Chose, I was informed that he has to go. So thank you. Thank you, Mayor. I’ve had a request to pull nine and 11. Okay, nine and 11 separate. Would anybody like anything else separate on the planning agenda? Go ahead. So I would like to move one through eight and 10. Okay, one through eight and 10 are on the floor by the committee chairs or any discussion on those matters.

[4:26:40] Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Seeing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Go ahead. Thank you, I’d like to put number nine on the floor, 15, 11, Clark Road. Okay, that’s on the floor. I have Councillor Hopkins and Councillor Closa. Thank you, Chair.

[4:27:13] Through you, Chair. I think I’ll move that motion. Oh, the Chair moves it because it’s presented— Oh, pardon me, I’ll second it then. Because I have to provide the reasoning for the motion. Yeah, there’s, so let me step back for a second. There’s an amendment sheet related to this to provide some additional context and reasons from what the committee did. So with colleagues, indulgence is probably ideal to get that on the floor to make the full motion complete, which I think that’s why Councillor Cuddy jumped up is he needs to provide the amendment.

[4:27:53] Trying to be efficient here, thank you. I apologize to everybody for that. So go ahead, Councillor Cuddy. You’re gonna move the pre-emement sheet and the second it by the Chair. So you can go ahead and speak to it now. Thank you, Chair. So I’ll read off the reasoning for the motion. It being noted that the, and by the way, that the clerk has this, I believe. So we’ll just reading, I’ll just read this. Being noted that the above noted amendment is being recommended for the following reasons. Number one, the requested amendment is consistent with the PPS 2024, and number two, the requested amendment would permit development that is considered appropriate and compatible with the future land uses surrounding the subject lands.

[4:28:35] Thank you, Chair. Okay, so that, okay, so we’ll deal with this amendment and then if it passes, there’ll be an as amended motion that’s to happen, but we’ll take speakers on the amendment. Go ahead, Councillor Ploza. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This one was actually, as it came through committee, recommended for refusal. Committee voted four to one to not refuse it, but to move forward with it.

[4:29:10] Reasons for going forward was left blank at committee. That’s why you see Councillor Cudi standing today to provide that information. So just wanted to help put that into context. I was a no-it committee and will remain no. Staff can speak to the reasons of the recommendation at any point, committee wish or council wish. Appreciate it. On the amendment, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, on the amendment, I won’t be supporting this. I was planning and I agree with the award Councillor that the developer is a good developer in our city.

[4:29:47] And I want to thank the committee for designating the farmhouse that’s on the property as well. I think I really appreciate that. But there are, I’m supportive of the refusal coming from staff. This is for heightened density up to 10 stories. We’re six, was the recommendation. There’s a number of deficiencies here. And I know we all don’t sit on the planning committee, but I would like— Councillor, we’ll have debate on the main motion.

[4:30:22] This is just the amended piece to add the reasons. And then there’ll be a main motion. I can wait. Like some of this is main motion stuff. Okay. Yeah, okay. On the amendment to add the reasons that Councillor Cudi outlined any other speakers to that? Okay, we’ll open that piece for voting. I think the vote motion carries 11 to three.

[4:31:16] Okay, so as amended motion moved by Councillor Cudi, seconded by the chair, yes, Councillor Lehman. Good to second, the as amended. Yes. Okay, now debate on the as amended motion. Go ahead, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And I’ll start all over again. I was a committee and I was not supportive of the committee’s recommendation. I agree with the word Councillor, the developer is well-known. There’s a lot of great work in our city, but I also wanna thank the committee for supporting the designation, historical designation of the farmhouse.

[4:31:54] One of the reasons why I’m supportive of the refusal is the heightened density that is allowed up to 10 stories. For me, supporting growth in focused areas where it’s strategically placed is important. This is out in the rural area. We really don’t see much development around this property. I also have concerns about the integrity of the properties around.

[4:32:31] But more important, what I’m starting to realize is that up policies should matter. They’re not perfect. The London plan, I’m sure, no longer looks like it did at one time. It is our official plan. But when I see developments come forward, I really rely on these policies to have a better understanding on how we build our communities. So, and I take the advice from our staff as well. It does mean something to me, as I try to explain to residents in my community why we approve these applications.

[4:33:16] So, I won’t be supporting it for those reasons. Thank you. Okay, other speakers on the as amended motion. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. So, I will be supporting it. And I’m gonna respectfully disagree with Councilor Hopkins. The reason we have a planning committee is because sometimes Council gets to decide to color outside the lines of the official plan. It’s a guiding document. It is not the same power and force and effect as a zoning by-law.

[4:33:50] It’s not the same power and force and effect as the Provincial Planning Act. It is a guiding document, but it is not carved in stone. It’s not the 10 commandments. And we actually are allowed. That’s the whole reason we have a planning committee. Otherwise, staff could just approve or refuse. And it would just be a bureaucratic process with no council input. In this case, we’ve got a ward councilor who’s supportive of a little extra height and density. In an area where at the moment, there’s very little, but it’s not envisioned to stay very little. And across the road, another residential subdivision has already been approved and we’ll start getting built out.

[4:34:28] This is not going to appear overnight. We even heard during the delegation from the applicant that they’re gonna focus on the townhouse phase of the development first. And then the high-rise buildings at the corner will come later on, that there is plenty of room left in the setbacks to allow for future road widening of Clark Road. We will be seeing development here as it continues down Kalele and in between with Fanshawe Park Road there. We’re already seeing that growth, perhaps not as fast as the growth that’s been happening in the northwest or in the southwest, but it is coming out that way east of Highbury as well to Clark Road.

[4:35:09] And so this is an area of future development. Clark Road is an arterial road. So we are talking about locating density on a main artery. It’s a primary north-south artery for the east end of the city. And so to go a few extra stories and get a few extra units there, where we know that there’s a holding provision in the by-law for the water servicing because staff have said the project is actually on the books. It’s happening. I won’t quote the exact date. And I’m not gonna ask Mr. Mathers to either, but I think it’s 2027 or 2028.

[4:35:45] The water servicing project is getting done. So at that point there will be sufficient servicing capacity for the high-rises there. And so this is a case of, you know, this is a great opportunity to allow the higher height and density now. So that is people start moving into the neighborhood as it gets built out. They know what to expect at the corners. So it won’t be a surprise to them when they move into the neighborhood that 10-story buildings are going to be at the corner and stepping back into four-story stacked towns and then into single-family homes as you move away from the corner. So I think this is actually a good example.

[4:36:17] And with the Ward Councilor’s support, I’d encourage colleagues to support it as well. Any other speakers to this? Okay. We’re gonna open the as amended motion for voting. Seeing the vote, motion carries 10 to four. Okay, go ahead, Chair.

[4:36:50] Thank you. I’d like to put 11 on the floor regarding the official plan review of the London plan, final industrial land needs assessment. Okay, that’s on the floor. I’ll look to speakers to that. Councilor Frank, go ahead. Thank you. Yes, I circulated an amendment that I would like to add. I don’t know if the clerks have it queued up. Sorry to say that again. I was just asking if the clerks had a queued up. Oh, yes, of course. Yeah, you submitted an amendment. I’ll just get you to read it out once we get it on the screen there.

[4:37:22] Excellent, okay. There we go. Part I, that civic administration be directed to include as an appendix to the official plan review of the London plan, Urban Growth Boundary Review Report, mapping of a boundary expansion encompassing 1,054 hectares of developable land for information purposes. And I can speak to it if I have a secondary. Is there a secondary councilor Hopkins seconds? So go ahead and speak to it. Thank you, yes. And I’ll include one question through you two staff. I was hopeful that we could get this map for 1,054 hectares. So based on my understanding, and maybe I’ll just get confirmation through to staff that all of our other plans and strategies and everything that we’re using to make any kind of informed decisions, we’re using the council approved population projections.

[4:38:07] And can I just get the confirmed by staff? Mr. Mathers. Through you worship, yes, that is correct. Go ahead. Great, so main reason for having this is just to have a reference point. Given all of our other strategies and plans, we’re gonna be using a number that’s more similar to 1,000 hectares. When we’re making all of our decisions, I like to actually understand what that looks like in our GMIS planning, what that looks like in our DC background study because that map will actually be more reflective of where we are planning to grow in the next 20 years. So I was just hopeful that I could see what the near term plans look like and staff have let me know that it wouldn’t be too difficult for them to make such a map.

[4:38:47] So that’s pretty much all I was hoping for. Okay, so that amendments on the floor, keep the debate to the amendment, I’ll look for any speakers. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, so I won’t support this and I’m gonna ask colleagues, strongly encourage colleagues, to defeat this. First of all, the number that’s being proposed, while it may be influencing other plans, is not the number that we’ve approved for the Urban Growth Boundary Expansion. And that’s what we’re talking about today is the Urban Growth Boundary Expansion. We have that number, staff have sent out a draft map, there’s been public consultation on that draft map, and now to ask staff to come up with another map, just so we can compare it.

[4:39:29] ‘Cause it’s not actually the Urban Growth Boundary Expansion that we’re talking about, but just so we can compare it ‘cause we’d like to see. First of all, not only am I going to ask them not to undertake that work, we know that planning staff have enough work on their plate already, with the re-thing zoning, with everything else that they are trying to undertake for us, secondary plans that need updating all of those things, but in addition to that, we would be creating a second map without any stakeholder consultation, without any chance for any back and forth, for people who have been told by the draft maps that this is the land coming in.

[4:40:10] So now we’re gonna start a whole second round of back and forth, we’re going to create a lot of animosity in the community, we’re gonna start creating fights over, wait a minute, go ahead, microphone. Thank you, nowhere in any of my comments or in this motion have I asked for any consultation, and in fact I explicitly did not ask for consultation, so we wouldn’t have to have this debate at council, so I just wanted that clear, and I don’t know if the deputy mayor is just adding that to his contacts, but I’m just saying that that’s not at all included in any of this motion. Okay, good clarification, keep it to the— That’s on the floor.

[4:40:45] But that’s actually the point. The urban growth boundary map that we have produced has been a result of considerable consultation with landowners, and now before the end of the year, we’re gonna ask staff to produce a second map without any consultation about whose land should come in and out, because it’s based on another number that’s not part of the approved urban growth boundary. So not only are we asking staff to undertake extra work, but we are doing so in a way that completely removes the stakeholders who have been involved in this process since day one of the urban growth boundary review to now not have any involvement, we’re just gonna bring forward a second map based purely on staff’s opinion without input from stakeholders, and that is not an appropriate way to go about an urban growth boundary discussion in my opinion, so I really strongly encourage colleagues to defeat this.

[4:41:36] It is a request for a second map for information purposes because we wanna know what it looks like if we used a different number, but that’s not the number we’ve approved. Let’s stick with the number we’ve approved and get this done. The clock is ticking not only on the urban growth boundary, but how that feeds into the GMIS, how it feeds into the next development charges study, and the next development charges bylaw for the next term of council. So we need to get this done. Other speakers to this, go ahead, Councillor Hopkins.

[4:42:09] Yeah, thank you, I appreciate the Deputy Mayor’s comments, but I think using updated information in any plan or policy is up to us. Having that information included does not stop the debate or the consultation or anything going forward. It’s using the numbers. Okay, point of order. Or personal privilege, I’m not sure. No, a point of order. - No, a point of order. The Councilor referred to new information. Councilor Frank, in her introduction of this motion, actually spoke to the old information that Council adopted prior to the urban growth boundary.

[4:42:50] It’s not new information. Yes, so let me just clarify a point of order. So this is not a point of order. Councilors are allowed to get information incorrect and they’re allowed to say it out loud. And there is no mechanism besides the debate to correct that. So we don’t call a point of order just because Councilor didn’t say something exactly as you understand it. There is no mechanism the procedure by-law for that. There’s no point of information. There’s no point of let me add some context. So I appreciate that you’d like to clarify that and you did, but those are not points of order.

[4:43:23] Councilors are gonna stand up. They’re gonna say things. They might not get all the facts right. The next Councilor can stand up and can correct that, but that’s how we correct fit. We don’t have a mechanism to jump in as Councilors are speaking in this way. I would say it happens a lot. Unfortunately, it happens at all levels of government, but we just don’t have a mechanism for that. So let’s keep this, unfortunately, to the way the procedure by-law operates. Councilor can continue with the comments. And if you have something that you feel the Councilor is not correct on, you have a difference of opinion, you can stand up and express that when it’s your turn to speak.

[4:43:55] Go ahead, Councilor Hopkins. Thank you, Your Worship. And maybe I’ll speak from the Ward Councilor’s perspective of a ward that has the boundaries. Most of the increases in the UGB is in Ward nine, Ward seven, a little bit out in the east. I really do think it is important to have information that is available to any of us to consider and be informed. Other speakers to the amendment.

[4:44:36] Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Voting the vote, noting the motion fails. Five to eight, and that Councillor Hill here is absent.

[4:45:13] Okay, so back to the main motion, which is the committee’s recommendation. I’ll look for speakers on that. Okay, go ahead, Councillor Frank, ‘cause you rose and moved in a member right away, so you can speak to the main motion. Thank you, yes. I was just hoping that we could get item. Sorry, where’d it go? B pulled separately. B, okay, yeah, we can do B separate. Okay, we’ll do B first, just to make it easy.

[4:45:46] But I wanna make sure everybody’s done the debate on the whole thing before I pull up that vote. Anybody else wanna speak to this? It’s not a public participation meeting, so you just get to observe. We have those at committee, but not at council. Nope, I’m sorry. Yeah, well, if you wanna speak to a Councillor, I’d email them or check with them, but there’s no public participation meeting here. So we have to continue with the meeting. Okay, so I’m gonna pull B separate. We’ll vote on B first. Okay, so we’ll open B for voting. Posing the vote, the motion carries 10 to three.

[4:46:36] And now we’ll open the rest of the— Posing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero.

[4:47:19] Sure. Thank you, that concludes the 15th report by working with me. Okay, thank you, added reports. We have a report from closed session. Councillor Raman’s agreed to read that because it’s from her committee, so go ahead. Thank you, this is the 16th report of the council closed session. Your council closed session report. One banking service agreement renewal with the Bank of Nova Scotia, that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager find it supports in the city solicitor’s office following actions to be taken with respect to the 2026 renewal agreement with the Bank of Nova Scotia. A, the report dated October 6, 2025 with respect to the 2026 renewal agreement with the Bank of Nova Scotia be received, four legal advice, and B, a vote by council in public section be considered to proceed with a limited tender procurement in accordance with section 13, three IV of the procurement of goods and services policy.

[4:48:08] That progress was made with respect to items 4.14.34.45, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, as no to the public agenda. Great, any discussion on that? Okay, seeing none, then we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero, noting Councillor Ferrera has left the meeting.

[4:48:52] Okay, we’re on to deferred matters. There are none, increase. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, yeah, just had one. I have heard about some overdose deaths inside of our housing programs, and so I was just hoping to confirm that there have not been any within our whole community hubs in highly supportive housing reported as critical incidents, and would it be possible to get a briefing note on any critical incidents reported given to council? Okay, that’s the question.

[4:49:26] I’ll go to stop to see that back. Mr. Dickens, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. I would not be able to confirm if there have been overdose deaths reported through the two hubs or the two highly supportive housing units. There may have been, I would need the team to go through the critical incident reporting, and as far as a report back, it will caution council members that the cause of death is not always known. That requires a coroner’s office to be involved, in which case, in many instances, they’re not involved. We have looked into this. We don’t typically publicly report it on deaths other than at the aggregate.

[4:50:00] When you start condensing reported deaths down to a specific address, or two or four specific addresses, and then try to narrow it further into overdose specific, we could run the risk of identifiable information or that data being identifiable or attributed to an individual. So at this point, I would need the team to go and look at the critical incident reporting. As far as a report back, we wouldn’t have an accurate depiction for you on overdose specifically, because that would require a determination on the cause of death, which is not always in place. All right, thanks, Councilor.

[4:50:35] So the briefing note just on critical incidents then, like without the specificity? That piece, was that something you could do or not? Through you, Worship, is that Council’s direction to prepare a briefing note or report back? It’s not, it’s a question from a Councilor at the inquiry stage, and a Council direction would come through a committee to the solicitor.

[4:51:09] Thank you and through you. I think that’s in the nature of a direction. So you’d have to look at section 18.4 of our Council procedure by-law, and it would require leave in accordance with section 11.4, which requires a two-thirds vote. Yes, I’m aware. The Councilor’s question is, is it possible? And the answer is, it would take Council direction. That’s what she was looking for. Take Council direction to do that, right? Yes, that’s correct. Yeah, I’m aware of how we would proceed if necessary. Okay, Councilor. - Perfect.

[4:51:41] Great. Any other inquiries? Okay, seeing none. Our original motions, there are none, by-laws. Okay, how we’re gonna divide by-laws. We’ve removed by-laws 360 and 361. They didn’t make it through a vote. We will deal with the childcare by-law first for Councilor Vameer-Virgan. Let’s build 366. We’ll deal with, oh, then we’ll deal with the treatment of operating budget surpluses and deficits as a separate bill.

[4:52:30] That’ll be 371. And then we’ll deal with the Clark Road by-laws, there’s two of them as a separate matter. That’s 369 and 379. Actually, okay, yeah, you’re right. Both those ones will be together, 369 and 379.

[4:53:18] Okay, and then we’ll do everything else after that, everything that’s left. So we’ll start with bill 366, which is the childcare item. I’ll just look to see, is there somebody who’s supportive of pretty much everything that happened today? Oh, okay, Councilor McAllister and Councilor Caddy, we’ll move in second, all of them. So we’ll start with the 366, the childcare bill will open first reading for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to zero with one recused.

[4:54:06] Okay, and second reading of this bill, any discussion? We’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to zero with one recused. And third reading of this bill, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to zero with one recused.

[4:55:06] Okay, we’re gonna do 371 next, which is the surplus batter, we’ll open first reading for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to one. And second reading on this matter, any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to one.

[4:55:49] And third reading of this bill, moved and seconded by the same over and seconder, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to one. Okay, and next, the Clark Road bills, there’s two of them, 369 and 379, they’ll have first and second, our first reading on that, we’ll open for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 10 to three.

[4:56:36] And second reading, any discussion on second reading? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 10 to three. And third and final reading of this, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 11 to two.

[4:57:18] And remainder of everything that’s left, all the items on that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. And second reading of all of these items, same over and seconder, I’ll see if there’s any discussion.

[4:57:59] I have one small thing to say, I’ll turn it over to the Deputy Mayor. I’ll take the chair, go ahead, Your Worship. I just wanted to mention, for colleagues, with these package items, which contains things from the Planning and Environment Committee, which involves net new units. If on approval of this set of bylaws, we will have approved, since we made our housing pledge to the province, just over 47,000 units of council permissions. Now, they haven’t been built, but we will have crossed the threshold.

[4:58:31] Mr. May, there’s, cannot, if I’m correct. Yes, okay, we’ll have crossed that threshold of providing 47,000 permissions since we made our provincial commitment. Again, we still want them to be units in housing. We’ve got a lot of work to do to turn those into fruition, but with the good work of the Planning Committee and this council, we’ve been very permissive over the last couple of years, and that is quite an accomplishment to pass that mark. And we’ve got a lot of work ahead in turning those into actual homes that people can live in by the end of the decade, but I thought I would note that for colleagues because that number came a lot quicker than I think any of us could have anticipated.

[4:59:03] So just wanted to say thank you to our staff for processing such a large volume of permissions over the last couple of years to get us to the point where we’ve crossed this marker along the way of meeting the provincial and federal government’s housing target. Thank you, Your Worship. I’ll return the chair to you. Any other speakers on second reading? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero.

[4:59:44] Okay, third and final reading of these package bills. We’ll open that. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Right, and that concludes bylaws, which means we’re at the end of the meeting. So I’ll look for a motion to adjourn. Councilor Vamevergan, seconded by Councilor Ilier, by hand, all those in favor? Motion carries.

[5:00:15] We are adjourned.