Open Council

16th Meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee

Open Council

16th Meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee

October 20, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Items 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.5 BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   5th Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee

2025-10-09 ACAC Report

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the 5th report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on October 9, 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.2   London & Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership Community Plan 2025-2028

2025-10-20 SR London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership Community Plan 2025-2028 - Part 1

2025-10-20 SR London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership Community Plan 2025-2028 - Part 2

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the staff report dated October 20, 2025, with respect to the London & Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership Community Plan 2025-2028, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.3   Information Report on Executed Purchase of Service Agreement for London Cares Homeless Response Services

2025-10-20 SR Executed Purchase of Service Agmt for London Cares Homeless Response Services - Part 1

2025-10-20 SR Executed Purchase of Service Agmt for London Cares Homeless Response Services - Part 2

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the staff report dated October 20, 2025, with respect to an Information Report on the Executed Purchase of Service Agreement for London Cares Homeless Response Services, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.5   Approval of Contract Amendment Single Source SS-2025-195 Rental of Weigh Scales – W12A Landfill

2025-10-20 SR Approval of Contract Amend SS-2025-195 Rental of Weigh Scales - W12A Landfill

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated October 20, 2025, related to the Approval of Contract Amendment Single Source SS-2025-195 Rental of Weigh Scales for the W12A Landfill:

a)    a contract amendment to the Single Source-SS-2025-195 contract with Active Scale for rental of weigh scales to be supplied and installed at the W12A Landfill in accordance with Section 20.3 e) i) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, as outlined below, BE APPROVED; it being noted:

i)    a Single Source-SS-2025-195 for rental of weigh scales to be installed at the W12A Landfill was administratively approved in accordance with Sections 14.4 e) and k) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy for a value of $46,500, which included supply and installation of a rental weigh scale for the outbound lane at the W12A Landfill and seven (7) months firm rental; and,

ii)    a contract amendment amount of $235,500, which includes supply and installation of a rental weigh scale for the inbound lane at the W12A Landfill, and the balance of firm monthly rental costs of both weigh scales until the end of 2027 is recommended; it being noted that the total amended contract value for SS-2025-195 with Active Scale for supply, install and rental of weigh scales at the W12A Landfill is $282,000;

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with these recommendations;

c)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, contract record and/or purchase order, whichever is determined appropriate; and,

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

Motion Passed

2.4   2025 Parkland Dedication By-law CP-25 Update

2025-10-20 SR 2025 Parkland Dedication By-law CP-25 Update

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated October 20, 2025, related to the 2025 Parkland Dedication By-law CP-25 Update:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 4, 2025, to amend By-law No. CP-25, entitled Parkland Dedication By-law, in conformity with the Official Plan, to provide for the conveyance of land and cash in lieu thereof for park and other purposes; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake the next biannual land values update to By-law CP-25 entitled Parkland Dedication to the be completed by January 1, 2028.

Additional Votes:

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That part b) of the motion BE AMENDED to read “January 1 2028” instead of “January 1 2027”.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

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

2025-10-20 SR Proposed Changes to the W12A Landfill CEMMP - Part 1

2025-10-20 SR Proposed Changes to the W12A Landfill CEMMP - Part 2

2025-10-20 SR Proposed Changes to the W12A Landfill CEMMP - Part 3

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated October 20, 2025, related to Proposed Changes to the W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program:

a)    the summary of proposed changes to the W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE RECEIVED as background information to support this public participation meeting;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring back the final W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program and associated by-law to the Community and Protective Services Committee in Q1 2026 for Council approval;

c)    the proposed change to impose a cap of one million dollars (Appendix “A” #6 “Community Mitigative Measures Fund”) BE REMOVED;

d)    the proposed change to reduce the number of meetings per year (Appendix “A” #8 “W12A Landfill Public Liaison Committee”) BE REMOVED;

e)    the Area Enhancement Fund and Enhanced Public Property Maintenance Program (Appendix “A” # 10 and 11) BE APPROVED; it being noted that funding does not come from the Community Mitigative Measures Fund;

f)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to submit an annual report to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee and forwarded to the Public Liaison Committee, identifying how funds are allocated from the Area Enhancement Fund and the Enhanced Public Property Maintenance Program;

g)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with respect to enforcement actions related to vehicle speeds, weights, and containment of loads, including leakage; and,

h)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with respect to the enforcement of odour regulations, including whether the City of London has the jurisdiction to enact further odour abatement regulations;

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

  •    A. Tipping;

  •    D. Fannon;

  •    A. Brown;

  •    M. Williams;

  •    D. Vandervelden;

  •    D. Connor; and,

  •    C. Ivanitz;

it being noted that a presentation, as appended to the Added Agenda, with respect to this matter, was received;

it being further noted that communications, as appended to the Agenda and the Added Agenda, from C.L. Ivanitz, A. Brown, D. and S. Vandervelden, M. McDougall and Councillor E. Peloza, with respect to this matter, were received.

Additional Votes:

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by J. Pribil

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Trosow

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the motion BE AMENDED to add the following parts:

c)  the proposed change to impose a cap of one million dollars (Appendix “A” #6 “Community Mitigative Measures Fund”) BE REMOVED;

d)  the proposed change to reduce the number of meetings per year (Appendix “A” #8 “W12A Landfill Public Liaison Committee”) BE REMOVED;

e)  the Area Enhancement Fund and Enhanced Public Property Maintenance Program (Appendix “A” # 10 and 11) BE APPROVED noting that funding does not come from the Community Mitigative Measures Fund;  and

f)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to submit an annual report to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee and forwarded to the PLC, identifying how funds are allocated from the Area Enhancement Fund and the Enhanced Public Property Maintenance Program

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the motion BE AMENDED to add a new part g), to read as follows:

the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with respect to enforcement actions related to vehicle speeds, weights, and containment of loads, including leakage

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the motion BE AMENDED to add a new part h), to read as follows:

the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with respect to the enforcement of odour regulations, including whether the City of London has the jurisdiction to enact further odour abatement regulations

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   (ADDED) Councillor S. Trosow and Councillor J. Pribil - Improving By-law Compliance Communications

2025-10-20 Sub. Improving By-Law Compliance Communications

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by J. Pribil

The Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to conduct an environmental scan of selected Ontario cities with respect to different approaches undertaken to communicate the status of by-law enforcement complaints and report the results back to the Community and Protective Services Committee by Q2 2026; it being noted that such a report should consider recommendations, including the potential amendments to By-law No. CPOL.-410-168, being the Municipal Compliance Services Policy, Clause 4.7, as well as any associated costs of implementation.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.2   (ADDED) Councillor D. Ferreira - Street Parking in the Core Area

2025-10-20 Sub. Downtown Parking - D. Ferreira

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue 1-hour free on street parking in the Core Area through the parking services HONK app funded using the existing approved funding from the Economic Development Reserve Fund until the end of 2025; it being noted that communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from K. Nielsen, Downtown London and K. Morrison, Old East Village Business Improvement Area, with respect to this matter, were received.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Confidential

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

6.1    Solicitor-Client Privilege

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, regarding an Application for Judicial Review of By-law No. PW-14.

6.2    Land Acquisition/Solicitor-Client Privilege/Trade Secret, Scientific, Technical, Commercial, Financial Information of the Corporation with Monetary or Potential Monetary Value/Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction for Negotiation Purposes

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending lease 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.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

The Community and Protective Services Committee convened In Closed Session from 3:16 PM to 3:41 PM.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 3:43 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (2 hours, 43 minutes)

[10:25] I do this meeting up here. Have you queued up for mine? There you go. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Thank you for the public participation in this meeting. (mumbles) All right, everybody. I’ll be starting the 16th meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee.

[24:42] Please check the city website for additional meeting details and information. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Adnishnabek Haudenosaunee, Linna Peiwak, and Adwandran. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit today. As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request.

[25:20] To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact CPSC@london.ca, or dial 519, 661-2489, extension 2425. I have members of committee in chambers today. I have Councillor Peter Cutty, word three, to my right. Councillor Jerry Cribble, word five, to my right. Councillor and Vice Chair Hadley and Callister, word one. To my right, Councillor Sam Trussell, is Councillor Sam Trussell should be joining this meeting soon.

[25:58] I have visiting members in committee in the chambers. I have Councillor Elizabeth Palosa, budget chair, word 12, to my left and online. Councillor Susan Stevenson, word four, online. I’d like to welcome everybody for staff in front of me and members of the public in the gallery. Okay, I will look to committee for any disclosures of a pecuniary interest. I see none. Okay, so that moves us on to the consent items.

[26:32] I have five consent items. No pull requests at the moment. So just looking for committee members, if they have any items to be pulled on the consent items. Councillor Pribble. Point four, please. Two point four, any other items to be pulled? I have none. All right, looking for a motion to move two, one, to two, three and two, five, excluding two, four, moved by Councillor McAllister, seconded by Councillor Cutty.

[27:21] Councillor Trussell is joining us in chambers. Okay, so we have a motion to move and second, two point one through to two point three and two point five. So looking for a speaker’s list, comments, questions. First, I’m gonna go to committee members and then I will go to visiting members. Let’s call for committee members. Okay, I have Councillor Stevenson online, please go ahead. Thank you very much. I’ve just got a couple of questions on 2.3, the contract for lending cares.

[27:57] I did send the list of questions earlier this morning, but I was really wondering what changes were made potentially to this program from when it was presented in April. I noticed that some of the numbers had changed somewhat significantly. Equipment had included a van and was at 92,000 previously. It’s now at 11,000 and the contractual services amount had increased from 200,000 to 300,000. So I just wondered if we could get an update on what has changed since April.

[28:31] Thank you, Councillor. I will go to Mr. Cooper, who’s online, please go ahead. Going through you, Mr. Chair. In working with London Care to finalize the budget submission, there were a few requests as the Councillors noted some line item requests. Predominantly, the changes were with the van and the gas because leveraging the other ETF program, the agency did not need those costs any further, but did have some additional costs related to staffing for the harm reduction workers and the crisis response staff.

[29:07] So those are primarily the two larger pieces of change, as well as some additional occupancy costs that were identified. Thank you, go ahead, Councillor. Thank you very much. And I just wondered why it’s listed as contractual services. Are the wages actually London Care’s staffing wages or is some of that being? Councillor, you cut off on the last part of your question there. Oh, sorry. Or I just wondered if some of that money was being contracted out to a third party.

[29:42] Thank you, go ahead, Mr. Cooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I believe all the money, all the contracted services are with London Care’s directly. As noted, there were the harm reduction workers and the crisis response staff. So that’s what is in the contract. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you very much. So is there any of that being paid for security? Go ahead, Mr. Cooper. Thank you. There were some updates to security and staff rotations. I don’t know, I don’t have an exact breakdown on that. I’ll have to reach out to the agency before council and confirm that.

[30:18] Thank you, go ahead, Councillor. Perfect, thank you very much. And through you, I just wondered why the contract wasn’t signed till September 15th. I know that the application had been done back in November, approved in February, and September was actually halfway through the contract period. So just wondering if that caused any problems, any issues in terms of services being provided for six months prior to a contract being signed? Thank you, go ahead, Ms. Cooper.

[30:51] Thank you, and through you, Mr. Chair, the services of London and CARES of the Commons were actually funded previously to the end of May through another alternative source through Life Stabilization. So the ETF funding was bridging that gap from May until the end of the year. The delay in sort of executing the contract was related to some line item changes that London CARES had requested as part of our finalizing of the contract, which required health Canada approval. The health Canada approval is a requirement. Not similar to some of our other programs, we do have some additional flexibility, say in our homeless prevention program or reaching home program, but health Canada did want to review all line item changes before finalizing anything.

[31:35] So that took some time given summer and summer holidays and vacation periods with all the parties involved, it just delayed it. As for impact to services, London CARES was still providing the services from May until contract execution and that don’t believe there are any impacts to the service delivery. Thank you, go ahead, Councilor. Thank you. And sort of a broader question is, we keep asking for more provincial and federal funding, which we know we need given the number of people living on our streets and the desperation.

[32:09] But I’m wondering with this 437,000 that we received, what new services are being provided to meet the needs that hadn’t happened previous to us getting the 437,000. I just want to make sure that as we’re getting new money, services, new services are being provided. Thank you, Councilor, go ahead, Ms. Cooper. Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair, I think it’s more related to the services focusing on trying to deal with the urgent response to the opioid crisis and the overdose crisis in our community.

[32:42] That’s what the priority was for for that ETF funding and that model of care that was identified was to increase the access within the comments to direct medical care, direct services agencies, harm reduction education, overdose prevention support. So some of those specific frontline supports were increased, if you will, and enhanced. Thank you, go ahead, Councilor. Thanks, yeah, I think, ‘cause that’s really important, you know, to the general public, when they look, they don’t see that anything is different or new.

[33:20] Were hours expanded or like, how were they able to increase capacity there? Thank you, go ahead. Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair, the hours were not increased. The application was following the traditional hours of the comments, which were the Monday to Friday and two, three hour blocks. So appreciating the perception in communities is still challenging in that. And with our homelessness population, this application wasn’t looking to sort of fill the entire gap that we have.

[33:52] It was to augment a number of already existing services within our community and to try and really focus some supports into that urgent needs of the overdose crisis. Thank you, before I go back to Councilor Stevenson, just noting, Deputy Mayor Lewis has joined us in chambers. Go ahead, Councilor. Thank you, and was there any discussion of extending hours there with this money? Thank you, go ahead. Thank you, and through you, Mr. Chair, there were not. Councilor.

[34:31] Is there any reason for that? Because there were like seven to three Monday to Friday. There’s a lot of talk about, you know, why not Saturday, Sunday? Why not later into the evening given the need? So I’m just wanting to help understand for the public’s perspective why we would expand capacity during the existing hours, rather than extend hours, given that there’s washrooms, showers, laundry available there. Thank you, go ahead, Mr. Cooper. Thank you, and through you, Mr. Chair, I’m speculating on this a little bit, right?

[35:04] I think it’s sort of, that was the resources that the agency could identify to align with the application. It was a community driven application to help with London inter-community health center, London Cares and others. So I’m not sure if there was consideration or whether it was an ask. I know there was some level of limited funding, so that could have played into it, but I am nearly speculating on that. Appreciating there is no need in our community beyond what this service and others can provide. Thank you, go ahead, Councillor. Thanks, yeah, it’s just about maximizing the space of a building that’s taxpayer funded already, and just trying to answer the public’s questions as to why the operations are only limited to 30 hours there.

[35:48] There’s a note in here about the collection of data, specifically around critical incidents like deaths, emergency service calls, that kind of thing. Will that information be shared with Council in public? Like, will there be any report coming back to Council or information so that we can show what was done with that money? Thank you, go ahead, Ms. Cooper. Thank you, and through you, Mr. Chair, there is a data reporting or reporting requirement with the ETF funding.

[36:20] It is specific to performance measurements and evaluation plan. There are a number of quantitative and qualitative indicators. Deaths and service calls are not part of that requirement for the ETF funding. The serious occurrence reporting is what you’re referencing is something that we include in all contracts and do have and collect that data internally. We weren’t expecting to report back on those two items specifically as part of this work, but we can look to see what data we have when we do finalize our evaluation report and look to provide that at the same time as the evaluation report.

[36:57] Like the not part of that report ‘cause it’s not a requirement of the Health Canada, but it is an information we could look to share at that time. Thank you, go ahead, Council. Thank you, but that wouldn’t be coming back to Council or the public that will correct that evaluation report or is that something that will be coming forth in a report? Thank you, go ahead. Thank you, and through you, Mr. Chair, I have to check in with our Health Canada colleagues to see if it is a requirement to make the report public. There is a number of, like I mentioned, quantitative and qualitative indicators in there.

[37:33] That’s something I will look to explore before Council. Thank you, go ahead, Council. Thanks, I just got two last questions. One is a follow up to that one. The critical incident reporting that’s part of all contracts. I haven’t seen any of that information come to Council at all and considering that we’re weighing the costs of what we’re doing versus emergency service calls and to know if deaths are happening. Is that something that if we asked for that a report could be brought back to Council? Thank you.

[38:07] Is a separate request? Go ahead, Mr. Cooper. Thank you, through you, Mr. Chair. We do report back on the shelter, serious occurrences. That’s part of the Strip Plan report back. The broader, all agencies within that, it’s more of an operational data collection tool, if you will, that way it allows our agencies to look at trends and allows our teams internally as we meet with agencies to identify trends and discuss any sort of concerns that happen. We haven’t traditionally provided that information as part of any public reporting.

[38:42] It is really used for internal program oversight. Thank you, go ahead, Council. Thank you, I understand that. And given that the whole community is focused on reducing deaths, it would be good to know and be able to show the public that those aren’t happening in areas in the hubs and highly supportive housing in the shelters and the other programs that we’re running. And then a question around, it mentions in the report that this location focuses on opportunities for people who have service restrictions in other programs and emergency shelters.

[39:15] I’m just wondering what allows them to do that here, that the other agencies aren’t able to provide that support. Thank you, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that’s a fairly broad answer and question. I think each agency has a number of policies and does work with individuals and try and support that individual as much as they can, recognizing that sometimes behavioral challenges can result in a restriction from an organization or a site. This space specifically is looking to apply that lower barrier type response.

[39:50] They do support pets, they do support couples. They’re taking a harm reduction approach to serve individuals with those high needs. Some of the sort of specific things they do is that they’re implementing a crisis management and a de-escalation conflict resolution process. Try and help to work with the individual to try and minimize service restrictions, both at this location and I think trying to see if other agencies will support the individual should they be restricted for whatever reason. Okay, thank you.

[40:23] Thank you very much through this chair to support my final question. It’s just a second counselor. You have 21 seconds to go. I just wanted to let you know that and you can go ahead. That’s perfect. I just have one last question. When there’s an overdose and the lock zone is provided on that at that site, is it a requirement to call 911 and to have emergency services come? Thank you, go ahead. Thank you, through you, Mr. Chair.

[40:57] I don’t have a contract right in front of me to see if that is a requirement should. Emergency services be called. Then that is part of the series of currents reporting. I know in many times individuals decline service and decline an emergency service call or should an agency call an emergency service sometimes to find is no longer at the site. So I can dig a little bit more into that, if you will, and try and find an answer for council. Thank you, counselor. You have eight seconds, go ahead. Thanks. It’s just the connection between administering the lock zone and the requirement to call 911.

[41:30] That’s the question. Thank you. Sorry, and one other point on that I’m proud to mention, given there is healthcare on site and with the location, I do believe if there are nurses on site, then there wouldn’t be any kind of net requirement if you will to call emergency services. But I will look into that with the organization and see if I can find some further clarity. Thank you. All right, counselor, you do have two seconds. Just let you know, but I’m assuming you’re not gonna use those extra seconds. Okay, looking for any other comments, questions, counselor, we’ll go ahead.

[42:06] Thank you, and my questions for all answered prior, but I do have one more, which I just noticed actually, regarding the payment and through the chair. September 30th, it was supposed to be the first payment. If that payment happened, and if it didn’t happen, when is it gonna happen? Thank you. Thank you. I will go to Mr. Cooper. Thank you, and through you, Mr. Chair, I appreciate the question from both counselors. All the questions I mean for both counselors. Once our contracts are executed, our common practice is to release the first payment upon execution.

[42:38] I don’t have the exact date of when the first payment may have been issued to London Cares. You can look into that and provide an answer offline to the counselor should you request it. But the common practice is once a contract is executed, we will process the first payment. Thank you. Go ahead, counselor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, please, if you could provide me the date, I would appreciate it, but bottom line is, even though it states in the, even though it states in the agreement, September 30th, the payment has not been made as the contract hasn’t been agreed to correct. Thank you.

[43:10] Go ahead. Thank you. No, the contract has been executed. I believe it was executed in mid-September. So we would have been processing that payment, whether it was released previous to September 30th, I’ll find out. We do have like an electronic sponge transfer opportunity with London Cares given they’re a historical service provider. So we do not necessarily have to issue a physical check. We would look to sort of EMT them the first payment, but I will look into that and I can respond to the counselor also. Thank you, go ahead, counselor.

[43:43] Perfect, thank you very much. No more questions. Thank you. All right, last call. Members visiting members. Okay, let’s call that question. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, that moves us on to schedule items. We have one, it’s a public participation meeting. Propose changes to the W12A Landfill community enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program.

[44:21] I understand staff have a presentation ready. So before that, I will go to the staff presentation, then I will go to opening up our PPM and then we will go to committee. So once staff is ready, just give me the thumbs up and then we can start the PPM. Go ahead, counselor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don’t know if you want to just recognize and believe this is Ms. Chambers’ official first time in front of us with the new position. Mr. Luce is also new with, well, he’s not new, just he’s not normally here.

[44:54] And I would also ask once the presentation’s done that IT lowers the platform ‘cause I can’t see this laptop. Thank you. Thank you. This is Ms. Chambers’ first, I guess real presentation as the Director of Environment and Climate Change and there’s another part to that title, isn’t there? Waste management, I believe, is that right? Through the Chair, it’s the Director of Climate Change, Environment and Waste Management. Thank you, Ms. Chambers, let us know when you’re ready to go. Hey, thank you and through the Chair, we’re gonna present just an overview of the proposed changes to the community and protective services community today about the landfill CEMMP, which is a community enhancement and mitigation measures program.

[45:47] So basically what we’re proposing some of the changes to a by-law that was created in 2014 and we’re highlighting these changes today and then we come back in future to present a new by-law effectively. But one of the biggest proposed changes we’ll talk about throughout this thing to do with funding, but a simple change is that we’d like to review elements of the agreement every four years. Currently the agreement was done in 2014, so we’d like to review it more often. Basically provides an opportunity to make operational changes as we go along.

[46:21] Another change we’d like to make is that annually we’d like to update committee on the expenditures of this committee because there is a budget associated with it and there are things that happen in the community that we could report out on, so we’d like to add that to the changes. One item that happened after the environmental assessment was completed, the landfill is going to go up, not out, but there is a visual impact that may occur because of that higher elevation of the landfill. So what happened was the boundary of this area has expanded because there’s certain benefits that happen when you’re within 1.5 kilometers of the landfill.

[46:57] The landfill boundary now is a bit larger to reflect the fact that it will be going up. So when we do this, we wanted to simplify the process to include people into the benefit package. So when we did that, instead of doing a visual impact assessment, which is a technical review, we’re going to incorporate seven homes that are within the 1.5 kilometers of the landfill and just automatically include them in the program now. So one of the benefits of being within 1.5 kilometer radius is certain payments to qualifying properties and the qualifications are similar to the ones before, but we’re proposing a 10% increase of the payments just reflecting inflation over time.

[47:42] So that will be a benefit to those in the program. One of the bigger items that is, Councillor Palosa has a motion on behalf of the PLC, the public liaison committee, is written in respect to a cap. So currently this CMMF fund receives money from the tipping fees at the landfill, approximately $110,000 per year. Over the past 16 years, they’ve amassed 1.32 million and they’ve spent 305,000.

[48:15] So the concept here was that we would cap it at $1 million and transfer the money into an account where they could be utilized by staff to make improvements in the area. Truly it was about, this cap is really proposed to kind of, for lack of a word, incentivize folks to spend the money that’s been in the account since it’s been of a slow draw to get money out of it. So the committee, the PLC feels they would like the cap, obviously, they’d like to maintain kind of getting that money together, but really we’re just requesting that cap so that some incentive to get the money being spent. Becomes a liability against the city’s reserve fund, the more money that they start to accumulate.

[48:53] So that’s another reason from a risk management perspective. So the other change is the public liaison committee meetings. What came out of the environmental assessment process is that now the city is required to have two committees. So where we currently have just the PLC, the public liaison committee, we are now required to have a landfill operating committee that has to meet two times per year and it has to involve members of the First Nations. So the request from staff was that we would do four times per year with the public liaison committee, which is currently six.

[49:27] So reduce that by two. Basically just to reflect that we have two more meetings that we need to meet with others about the same landfill area. And really that we feel we can still get a lot of things the same amount of work done with the PLC. Again, there’s a motion from Councillor Palazzo that the PLC would request to keep it at six meetings per year. It’s really just administrative burden for us, but their request would be to keep it to six. The one thing we’re doing due to a lot of requests from the committee and in the area for more enhancements, so to speak, on private property or a higher level of service to city lands, and we’re proposing to add $100,000 that the city can manage on behalf of the PLC to get things done that they would like done.

[50:16] Maybe increased landscaping, ditch, clean out, different things on the road, maybe more road washing, et cetera. So this would give staff the ability to go out and spend some money where we currently don’t have a formal fund. Similarly, for public property maintenance, another $300,000 to put in addition to this area. So it’s basically an investment in this area is another $400,000 is proposed for the changes to reflect the fact that there are things going on out there and we do want to be able to clean them up in an effective way. So that is the summary of the main changes that we’re trying to make to the original 2014 by-law.

[50:51] And we know there’s members of the committee here from the PLC that have submitted their comments as well. And we’re here to answer any questions of Councillor and Councillor and Councillors. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Chambers. Okay, so the next step would be the opening of the public participation meeting. So I am going to be looking for a motion. Moved by Councillor McAllister, seconded by Councillor Privell. All right, let’s call the question on that. Bosing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[51:33] All right, thank you. So before I go to members of the public who’d like to speak, I am going to just request that you are aware that there is no clapping, no cheering. We have to keep decorum, pretty firm here. And everyone will get five minutes. I would ask if you could state your name and then I’ll put my hand up when you’re ready to go for your five minutes and I’ll put my hand up again when you have about a minute to go. So just so you’re aware if you’re going to the full five minutes and also to keep comments related to this item on committee.

[52:12] So with that said, anybody who’s either online or in the gallery, first up you can walk up to this microphone right here. I guess I’ll go first. I’ve been here a few times. Some of you will know me. My name’s Alan Tipping. I live on Dingman Drive, 2819 Dingman Drive. I’m a device chair now of the PLC for the landfill. Been here many times talking about stuff like this, but the cap has to be removed on the million dollars.

[52:47] Everybody knows a million dollars doesn’t go very far. I know you’re just talking about the homeless shelter. How far does a million dollars go there? Probably not very far. The money of $305,000, I think that’s a little wrong because they donated $300,000 to Glenworth for the water. And as I’ve been on there for the last few years, we’ve donated more than that. We offered $12,000 to the University of Western Ontario to do a study to help us mitigate the odors. If we cap that, it’s changing the rules that were originally made.

[53:22] London has changed many rules with this landfill. I was a member of Westminster Town when the landfill opened. The rules were very solid there and London keeps backing down and changing them. There’s no reason that we can’t have more than that in the fund. Could you imagine if the landfill contaminated the White Oak Aqua fur down underneath there? Who’s gonna pay for all our wells? What if there’s a spill of something? A million dollars doesn’t help clean up very much. Doesn’t help very much. We’re willing to put that into our community, but it’s gotta be for something that we really need for our community.

[53:58] Lord knows, the city has not protected our community in any way. Okay, they’re talking about cleaning up out there. Well, I see you guys going down Highberry Ave, cleaning up every year. Who pays for that? Does Highberry Ave have a special fund for that? The city’s responsible for this stuff. We live out in the rural area. We get no parks, no buses, basically zero policing through this city. There is a lot of things we don’t receive that typical people do in this city and we all pay taxes. We pay the same taxes.

[54:31] We are not just a few people, as was said by our mayor on the news, and we’re just a few people out there. We’re not. We pay taxes. We’re individual people. We own properties and we pay it to the city. We expect the same things the city of London gets. City of London gets their garbage cleaned up. We do, we expect that to be done too on our taxes. The city of London gets their roads repaired. We expect that too on our taxes, not out of our funds. Those funds are there because the city took over this landfill and made a deal with us.

[55:06] And the deal was that it would keep accumulating. We’ve spent more than the 300,000, that’s a given. And I’m sure if we went through the PLC stuff, that would show up higher. We’ve offered to work with the city. We don’t get the city’s help all the time. We get notified. Things are going on at our meeting that they’re starting the next day and by the time we have their next meeting to discuss those items, it’s already gone through committee because we’re every two months. You guys relief stuff late, so we get it late. And our committee can’t work.

[55:40] So if you change us to every quarter, we’re never gonna be able to come back to the city and review anything because it all moves too quick before we have a chance to say anything. Two months is actually, in my opinion, it’s too long. I would like to see every month, but I’ll accept the two. But to go any farther, you’re ignoring our committee. Our committee can’t communicate with you. And that’s not fair, that’s our job. Finally, I was on that committee from the start when it first started. And then I left it because I found a lot of it was just, I’m not gonna, it was just washing.

[56:12] The city was appeasing us out there. So I left and I came back and the meetings now are getting more serious. That’s why this stuff’s coming to the head because the city’s afraid we’re picking up on stuff and we’re acting on stuff, we’re becoming organized and we’re gonna get organized even more than we are now. I want us to be a formal committee within this city. Okay, we should be. We carry a million dollar account. How many other committees carry that? Do you have? We should be a formal committee within this city. We should have our counselors there at every meeting, paying attention.

[56:47] Thank you, Jerry and Elizabeth for being so consistent. Member of Ward 5 is that merit every council, every one of our meetings. You know, there should be more interest in this. This is the big thing for the city. Could you imagine if you didn’t have a landfill? You imagine if you guys followed the rules and shut the landfill down what this city would be doing? So we need the respect, we need the help from the city, we need you to pay attention to what we want and what we need, not just wash us. That’s not fair, thank you.

[57:21] Thank you, Mr. Tipping. Right, looking for the next. When you get situated there, please say your name. Yeah, my name is Dan Fanon and then once you get for one minute to go, I’m just gonna put my hand up for you just so you know you have one minute to go in your delegation. So your starts now, go ahead. Yeah, I’m Dan Fanon, I’m a resident, close to the dump in the two kilometer area. And my concern is I don’t know how many people here own homes, how many people have put their entire investments and money into their property.

[58:03] And I’m sure if I asked all of you council members here to raise your hand, how many would be up here with all of us here? How did dump be moved with this huge expansion? How many of them would be up here? Can I please have raised hands? Nobody. I can’t allow participation like that, but you can still continue. No, why can’t you allow participation like that? This is a forum that council doesn’t necessarily raise their hands for any support, but the only thing I can do is take your questions.

[58:43] We can’t have interaction back and forth between the public participation in council, but I am going to be receiving any questions that you do raise or any other members may raise, and I will be asking that just now. I would almost guarantee you, anybody of those that was in our condition, they’d be up here too. So I don’t need to raise hand, but I’m just respectfully asking you folks here. We put all our investment into our house. And I’ve heard many times council say there’s no ideal situation, and I agree there isn’t. But what these council members can do here is they can throw their weight behind helping us.

[59:21] I’d like to know how many homes are outside the 1.5 kilometer area? How much money we talking that’s a city could give us something where we go to bed tonight and think, hey, the city’s supporting us on this. I see homes being sold to the city. Are they going to be torn down? Is the lawn going to be cut? Are we going to be in this war zone in 10 years where people, city buys the homes and we’re left in this derelict area? There’s no ideal situation.

[59:54] And we’re in this area and we have to put up with it. I know we do, but I’m really hoping city council, I see there’s a few young members here, talk to your parents, what would they say? Talk to your minister, what would they say? Talk to your 15 year old kids, what would they say? Is it right? No mom, I don’t think that’s right. There should be some protection for us. It isn’t right, it isn’t. Thank you very much council, I hope you reconsider and hope that you put that those same provisions that you’re putting forth for 1.5 kilometers.

[1:00:38] You do the please respectfully to the two kilometers also. Please, I think you want the community on board. That’s the best way to do it, right there. And I really would like to know how many houses that were purchased after 1996, is it? And what the impact would be on the city, you know, couple hundred thousand per home, I don’t know. We’re in a position here and we have to fight this. And I’m hoping city council, they can dig deep into their thoughts and what this is doing to us as a community and vote with their conscience.

[1:01:19] I really hope they do, thank you very much. Thank you, before I move on to the decks delegate, I just did take some notes for questions that I am gonna ask for staff. I’m not gonna ask them now, but the question of how many homes are outside the 1.5 kilometer area. I’m not sure if you’re able to answer this one, but if you do have information on that or the next one, I’m not gonna ask yet. I’ll go back after the delegation or the PPM. But I saw a question and if I wrote this down incorrectly, please just let me know that how many homes were purchased after ‘96 and what impact on the city that would be if we are able to answer that.

[1:01:58] Yeah, I know that would be a pretty in-depth look, but I’m just calling those out just in case if you can’t get prepared for that. All right, okay, please state your name and then I’ll give you five minutes and I’ll put my hand up when you’re getting close to the minute to go. Okay, my name is Alice Brown and my family, like many others in this community, have raised or so have resided and farmed south of the 401 for generations. We’re stewards of this land. We are south of the urban boundaries that the city drew and agreed to protect.

[1:02:34] This is supposed to be protected prime agricultural land. These are your words, these are your boundaries. My family personally has been farming for generations. We are talking dairy, beef, cash crop on prime farmland meant to be protected, farms that have fed your community, our community. In fact, we used to farm exactly where this landfill sits today. I say this to show you, I have lived through all of these changes and broken promises. I used to ride my horse on these roads. Now I can’t even get the mail safely afraid to be killed by the truck traffic.

[1:03:10] Twice we were told the city dump would close, twice. It didn’t. Now it’s expanding to, I believe, 2050 with a biosolids facility also. I visited Regina Monday Catholic School and spoke directly with the vice principal, Kathy, the principal, Kevin Barnes and Curtis at the London District Catholic School Board. None of them were aware of this landfill expansion, none. Or the proposed biosolids facility, which means the parents don’t know. My son attends pharmacy and he regularly tells me how bad this smell is.

[1:03:44] Teachers have plugged their nose during class. When his friends visit our homes, they often have to go inside because of the odors, the unbearable odors outside on our farm. How is this possible that this has not been raised as a concern in the relations to Regina Monday and the Catholic Board? We raise public alarm about encampments and homeless shelters near schools, yet where we, with thousands of students, spending more than 40 hours per week in a location directly impacted by these industrial odors and parents were never informed.

[1:04:18] The trucks roar past the school. The noise, the exhaust and odors never stop. And new school is being built that’s going even closer to these roads. These children are learning how to drive on these roads. This deserves urgent attention, a health and safety discussion, not an afterthought. The right or first refusal was set I think in 2006 when the landfill was smaller and had the expectation that it was at the end of its life and closure was to happen. Residents thought that they could endure this and take basically one for the team for London until a solution was made.

[1:04:56] Little did they know that the solution would be to keep the expanding landfill and break all the promises at our expense. It seemed very disrespectful and dangerous. These residents and farmers are the ones that sacrifice and continue to sacrifice for the growth of the London and inner city and the surrounding areas. One kilometer, seriously, one kilometer, that’s selfish and penalizing the residents and the community that has lived here for generations. I do believe that we deserve and require some respect in this matter. It was said you automatically added seven homes, which, why and are they within a different measurement of the one kilometer?

[1:05:34] If the landfill can grow, the safety zone must grow too. These aren’t harmless fumes we’re talking about. These are serious methane, VOCs, sulfur gases and mix of volatile compounds that our children are breathing in. These gases don’t stay put. They definitely don’t stop at one kilometer at a human boundary. I ask that you stop gaslighting us with this information. It’s toxic air pollution travels further than the landfill. They don’t stop at your chosen one kilometer boundary. These fumes are dangerous and in the wrong conditions they ignite. That’s a fact.

[1:06:07] These odors are not just unpleasant, it’s dangerous. Science shows admissions travels far and we live it. The radius must be four to five kilometers because that is the reality. This landfill expansion is expanding vertically. Oaters rise up and outwards. Vertically meaning that the landscape is not gonna trap any of this. Vertically means that it’s gonna affect even more people, more communities. This is science and we believe in science, right? So these are just what I’m asking for. I’m asking to expand the right to first refusal to four to five kilometers as the crow flies aerally just like it makes sense.

[1:06:43] This is one kilometer boundary makes no sense. It’s down, sorry I’ll keep going. I’ll go down here. I also wanna know what the RMC, who notified RMC? Who notified the London Board of Education? Where did that go wrong? How do they not know any of this? How do the kids do not know any about this? How do the parents not know anything about this? This sounds like an air-brokovich situation in 20 years. This sounds like serious health concerns that you guys are all gonna be dealing with. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:07:17] Okay, I have some questions. I’m just gonna throw to staff on this one but I won’t be asking at the moment. There was a question about adding seven homes within the 1.1 to 1.5 kilometer. It was said 1 kilometer or 1.5 kilometer, just I guess get some clarification on that when we get back to you. And then the last question of notifications on that. All right, I’ll go to the next delegate. I believe you have already spoke. I won’t be able to hear you again. You only get one turn around for a public participation.

[1:07:53] I would ask for your please. If I could just say one thing, one minute. Okay, just a second. Okay, the clerk is telling me you have a minute and 20 seconds that you haven’t used. So I’m just gonna look at committee. If anybody opposes me allowing a public purchase, or the member of the public, okay, go ahead. Thank you very much. All of you here for let me speak one last thing. And I forgot to say this. So the 1996, I believe that’s the date where anybody would purchase previous to 96 will not be subject to these extra benefits that the city is gonna give us.

[1:08:33] I’m just, I wanted to say things in my speech but I forgot. And I know the smell, it won’t know the difference between when you bought your house. But just the justification behind that, it just seems pretty bizarre. Unless there’s some technology that the smell will avoid those houses were bought before 1996. It makes no sense. And I really thank you for allowing everybody here to put in what I forgot to say. Thank you very much. Thank you, okay. Looking for the next member of the public, okay.

[1:09:07] State your name, then you got five minutes and I’ll put my hand up when you got about a minute to go. Thank you. My name is Mike Williams. I purchased my property in 1998. As a young guy, buying his first home, this is my first starter home. I invested everything I had into it and I’ve been working hard at it. And the contract that the city of London had with the landfill, there’s a municipality at the Westminster Township. I followed this one as a teenager before I bought the property. I was to expire in a certain year that was soon after I’d be buying it. There was no word of it. Not closing. And certainly there was, since my cousin, Irene Matheson, worked very hard on the original contract with the municipality of Westminster Township in the city of London with that landfill.

[1:09:49] There was, worked very hard on making sure there was a lot of community guarantees. And one of those was odors, making sure that any odors would have been mitigated immediately. And no whole bunch of other things I won’t get into into the contract of all the details about hazardous waste management and on site, all these things. One after one, they’d all been broken. And when it hit that moment where the odors were far exceeding the quarter mile radius, that was the property value protection of the zone at the time. So you’d think a property value protection zone of a quarter mile would be the impact zone.

[1:10:25] There’d be no impact outside of that. Well, that’s not the way this management of the city of London operates. They’d just say, no, no, there might be impact odors. They don’t even talk about it. You talk about odors all you want. There’s no response. You talk about what are you gonna do about the odors, there’s no response. What are you gonna do to help the people who are suffering under these odors? No response. There’s no acknowledgement out of it. I am roughly two and a half kilometers, maybe more. Three kilometers away from the boundary of the landfill. I’ve been inundated in these lip and odors for 15 years. And to the point where I’ve had enough of it, I’ve rejoined the PLC committee.

[1:11:11] I’m just furious every time I’m in there. I’m listening to all the other PLC members complaining about this. This is insane. I don’t want to go on too much of my time about this. I’ve made my point clear. The property value protection needs to extend as far as odors. I know it’s a per review every four years or something with these policies you say you have. But odors aren’t mentioned in there at all. Motors have to be the primary concern of the community. Living under this is just insane. I feel for everybody that’s here and the hundreds that are not here, and I hear from them every day, and somebody should do something.

[1:11:46] And not everybody has got the will and fortitude or the position to be able to stand here today, but they say only 1 in 100 people will actually step up and act. Well, you got 700 people representing us here. So what more do we have to do to make it clear? You’re humans. You buy a property you want to invest in it. I need property value protection. I need to know that when I’m going to invest in my future, when I’m going to build that shop or bring somebody over for a party, I need to have some security guarantees. I need to hear that odors are going to give you a major concern.

[1:12:17] If I have a once, it will only be once. It will be mitigated right away. There will be measures taken, compensation, something, right away, right away. None of this, oh, we just need patience. It takes time to correct these things. How much patience do we have to give? We’ve put up with it, OK, for however many years that we’re done with it. I know you’ve stopped putting sewage in the landfill, but now you’re proposing to compost it right next door. Great. Wonderful. What’s happening now? What are the boundaries of that odour? We have to go through this again. Are you going to have another protection zone for it, that facility?

[1:12:51] Because that’s probably going to be what? 10 kilometers? Because this isn’t going to be another orga world. How insane is this behavior? This is London’s backyard. When I moved there, the whole talk— and I heard it from Mike Lucy saying it to me directly— this is London’s backyard. We love this backyard. This is our future. This is London’s future. Well, look at what the future you’re building is. It’s a landfill. And it’s expanding. And it’s not just expanding for London. This is now provincial. You’re bringing in provincial waste. Provincial waste into our backyards. And you’re offering us the whole bunch of gas lighting, a couple of hundred thousand here. We’re going to put it into roads.

[1:13:23] Oh, the roads you don’t maintain already? Great. What’s a couple hundred thousand going to do? A few more potholes? Oh, what about the garbage collection that you were under contract with the municipality of Winstonshire Township? You’re supposed to clean up all the garbage along the roadways. We can’t even get it. You walk those ditches. They’re just filthy with garbage. Get out of your car. Don’t do it. If I get out of your car, park in the gravel. Look under the grass. Kick it around. It’s all garbage. It’s not picked up. You can’t get that stuff picked up. We’ve been pursuing trying to get that picked up for years with the PLC committee. Not once have they gone out there to do it.

[1:13:54] Not once. Actually, I should say once. I did see them once doing it last year. But it’s just, I’ve had enough of this. I’ve had enough. We’ve all had enough where we don’t know what we have to do, how much more empathy we have to try to appeal to you with. But it’s just being stonewalled. And I’ve got about 40 seconds left. I know, but I’ve got— You have zero seconds left. Zero seconds, actually. Well, I ran off over time. OK, thank you. All right, thank you. I saw an embedded question into the gentleman’s comments about property value protections and the reach and extent of odors.

[1:14:32] So just log that one. All right, looking for the next— please come to the front, say your name. You have five minutes. I will put my hand up when you have one minute to go. So go ahead. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Dave Vanderbilten. I live with my wife, Suzanne, and her two children at 4248 Glenworth Drive. About 1 to 1.5 kilometers from W12 landfill. Our land is actually at 1 kilometer, our house is at 1.5. Our family has owned and lived on this property for nearly 100 years since 1928, long before the landfill exists.

[1:15:10] I’m on public liaison committee and advocate for the broader community. But today, I am speaking on behalf of our family. We were there before the city first proposed this site to the township of Westminster back in 1975. Since then, we’ve been told a number of times the landfill would close. In 2006, and then again in 2025, each time these promises were broken. And now, instead of closing, the city is expanding by eight stories and extending operations up to at least 2050. This means that my family will have lived beside the dump for nearly 75 years by the time it’s finally closed, if it does ever close.

[1:15:46] We’ve endured decades of odor. We deal with garbage dumped along our roads, constant visual blight, and the stigma of living beside a landfill. It’s exhausting and disheartening. We have built our little paradise in the country. It’s beautiful, except for one thing, the dump. Try to imagine for a minute what it’s like to host a party, a parent celebration of life, or a pool party for our kids’ sporting teams. We’re always on edge. Praying the wind doesn’t change directions. We are proud of our home, but worried that suddenly, we’ll get a face full of rotting smell. If anyone can remember— pardon me.

[1:16:21] Does anyone remember what a three-day-old diaper genie smells like? We all have kids who kind of can remember that. And it is a smell that we will get periodically. It varies in degrees. Imagine how embarrassing that is when it happens. We get to smell approximately 20 to 30 times per year, and we never know when. By now, we’re facing even more impact, a bio-set human waste plant, and a gun range at a training facility, both 1.5 kilometers of our home. It feels like, pardon me, it feels like every undesirable use keeps getting placed under back care because of where we live.

[1:16:59] That’s not just unfair. It’s what I would call geographical discrimination. After 25 years of living with this, and now another 25 years is planned by the city, we’re asking for two fair and reasonable things that are not currently in the paperwork that you have for the mitigated measures. First off, we think that you should start a legacy evaluation plan for long-standing families like ours. It would allow us to sever our house in two acres from our farmland. The city has done this for others, for another property in the past.

[1:17:32] So it’s really no burden to the city, but I think it’s a fair option for us to have. That way, if the odor and expansion makes it unlivable, we can sell the home portion while keeping the farm and the family name. We don’t want to leave, but we deserve that choice. Second, we ask that our compensation be increased. Currently, we are at the third level, the first right or refusal program, the Penn XA table B1. These legacy properties should be in a group one compensation considering how long we have had to live with this dump.

[1:18:04] It’s time for the city to recognize a long-term environmental and financial burden this community has carried for generations. And my family has kept our end of the bargain for almost a century, caring for this land and staying part of the community. We ask the city to do the right thing and make these changes for the three or four legacy families that are still left. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. All right, looking for anyone else in the gallery who would like to speak, who hasn’t spoken. Okay, just to adjust the mic there.

[1:18:39] Thank you. My name is Deborah Connor. I live on Dingman Drive. I’ve been there 24 years. There are no sidewalks on our street. I have an autistic son, that’s his service talk. So when we go for a walk, we have to walk three wide. The dump trucks, the garbage trucks come flying down our road. It’s a 50. They do more than that. We get the garbage that flies off of it and we get the speed that they’re coming. And that is dangerous ‘cause I have to walk on the road. There’s no place else for me and the dog.

[1:19:13] We also get the odor from the dump and you have a birthday party and all of a sudden you get that stench. It’s not fair. You’ve got, like I saw that map where they’ve done the radius out and it looks like they’ve gone from the middle of the dump and done their one kilometer. That doesn’t affect anyone but them. I’m about five kilometers as the bird flies from the dump and we get impacted from the odor. Not only the odor, but all the trucks that come down our road, the garbage that flies off and is left lying on our driveway and our ditch that we have to clean up.

[1:19:50] The danger of them driving down the road, it is not safe. It smells and if it was your backyard, you wouldn’t want it. You mentioned something about compensation for I think it’s seven houses. They get a compensation of 10% or an increase of it. Like if that’s because of the city dump, then that should be expanded to us who also impacted by this odor. You’ve got to realize that you’re building this bigger and like they say before, the odor is gonna travel farther.

[1:20:25] So it’s gonna go past my house and reach farther down. And it’s just not right that you live in the city or the north of the city and you get to decide, oh, it doesn’t matter. You only live this far and the dump owns all that property. So nobody ever knows anything. I know because somebody put a flyer in my mailbox, not because the city gave me any notice of it. And that’s not right. I’m impacted by the odor and we should know we should be a part of what you decide and our voices should be heard.

[1:20:59] And you need to do something about your speeding trucks down our road so that I don’t get hit or my son doesn’t get hit. He has a flight risk. He has taken off out of the house and he will run out on the road. And I do the best I can. But if he does that, he has no understanding of your trucks and speed. He doesn’t understand running out on the road is dangerous and those trucks are going too fast. They will kill him. And imagine how you would feel if you’re doing everything you can to keep your child safe.

[1:21:33] And because somebody thinks that it’s an 80 when it’s clearly 50 and they don’t care because it’s a nice straight from Wellington to Highbury is a nice flat. The only thing you have are the railroad tracks and they fly over those. How would you feel if it was your child that you had to worry about getting out and possibly getting hit or you can’t even go for a walk anymore because the garbage trucks go so fast? It’s not safe. It smells there. And I would really like it if you take that all into consideration and find a different place for the dump.

[1:22:09] Like I said, I’ve been there for 24 years and we were told it was closing. It should close. It should be anywhere but in my backyard. Maybe your backyard. So take it there and have you have the smallest out of us. Thank you. Oh, go ahead. Also, an impact value on our properties. I’d like it farther than my house too. So the whole area, every place— because I know people past me on Digma Drive— get impacted by the order as well.

[1:22:47] So that’s only the least you could do for us. Thank you. OK. Looking for the next member of the public. OK. Welcome. Please state your name and then you’ll have five minutes. I’ll put my hand up when you’re about one minute to go. Thank you. I’m Cindy Ivanitz. I’m the chair of the PLC. My address is 3691, meaning drive. I live across the street from the landfill. It was purchased in 2003, expecting the landfill to close in 2006.

[1:23:21] So here we are, another 20 years of the landfill. I’ve put in my concerns through an email. I just wanted you to put a face to my name because we are the community that you’re impacting. Thank you. Thank you. I’m sorry, I forgot to tell you my address. You don’t need to. OK. You can if you want, but that’s not a requirement. All right. Looking for anybody else in the gallery or online that would like to speak to this.

[1:23:58] OK, there’s nobody online. All right. So I am first going to look for a motion to close the public participation meeting. Moved by Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Trusso. Let’s call the question. Closing the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0. OK. As promised, I am going to go to staff for some of your questions. See if we can get some information on that before I go to committee for a discussion.

[1:24:35] So I did queue up staff with the questions. I can queue you up again, or I can go right to you if you’d like to go on now. So Ms. Share, I believe I’m going to. I can certainly start with respect to the questions related to the number of homes between 1.5 and 2 kilometers and those purchased since ‘96 and the cost. Staff do not have that information at this meeting, but we can provide it by Council in advance of the next meeting. I will remind that this is— no decision being made today. What we are seeking is for you to have heard from the residents and to provide us feedback that we will incorporate into the ultimate bylaw and policy that will come back to you later this year for final approval.

[1:25:16] Thank you very much. OK. So I have those questions highlighted for when you come back and when we have this discussion again. I wanted to follow up on a couple of other ones, and that would be the notifications going out to— Mr. Chair, I believe Ms. Share said— sorry, it’s me, Kelly— that those answers by Council, I don’t believe this is coming back before this committee until Q1, 20, 26. So certainly, it can be incorporated into the discussion when it comes back for final approval, but this information will be part of the agenda approved from here.

[1:25:51] So we’re just happy to share that email in advance as well. We just need to have our Realty colleagues assist us with gathering that information. We did have the other question related to notification, particularly to Regina Mundi. This is, as noted, we are not approving any changes to the landfill as part of this work. This is strictly related to the Public Liaison Committee. The school is not a member of the Public Liaison Committee, so therefore would not be notified of any changes related to the compensation available to the members of the committee. They would have had the ability to participate in the environmental assessment, which took the better part of a decade and had very extensive engagement for anyone who wished to talk about the landfill when that decision was made to expand the current footprint upwards.

[1:26:33] I believe we also had a question, how did we determine the additional homes that are being proposed for inclusion? How do we determine the property value protection and distance? I will refer those to Mr. Losey and Ms. Chambers, and I will also make a note with respect to the speeding trucks. We will, again, work with our drivers and get more information out to the commercial haulers in LPS. We absolutely agree the speed limit must be obeyed. Thank you for that. That would exhaust most of my questions. I guess the one last one, or not the questions, my questions, but the questions that I heard from the gallery.

[1:27:06] So for the property value protections and I guess the overlap to the extent with respect to odors, is that coming back at a future meeting or will we be able to speak to that now? Certainly, Mr. Chair, we can speak to what is being proposed in the amendments to this process in by-law, and that would include the addition of additional homes and how we determine the area compensation at this time. Okay, thank you. Thank you, through the Chair. So to the answer to the question about how we’ve determined the additional seven homes in the current community enhancement and mitigative measures program, property with homes within 1.5 kilometers of the landfill site would have had to gone through a visual impact assessment to determine if property value protection would be extended to them.

[1:27:55] The change that we’ve proposed is that we’re removing that visual impact assessment. So lands with homes within 1.5 kilometers will automatically be eligible for property value protection. Okay, thank you. All right. I am going to look to committee for, we have to put a motion down before we can discuss. So looking to committee, we have a staff recommendation and we also have a potential amendment from Councillor Palosa. So to discuss, go ahead, Councillor.

[1:28:33] I’ll put forward the recommendation. I’m willing to entertaining the amendments, but just to get something on the floor. Okay, I have a mover for the recommendation from the staff report, seconded by Councillor Cutty, okay. I can open up the floor for questions or comments. Go ahead, Councillor Trussle. Would it, excuse me through the chair? Would it make sense to hear the amendments so we can discuss the whole thing? It would. If the committee allows us to, I will go to Councillor Pribble. Go ahead. I will move it. The recommendation by Councillor Palosa. The amendment.

[1:29:07] Okay, so we have a recommendation, moved and seconded. Now we have an amendment moved and I would need a seconder. Seconded by Councillor Trussle, okay. I will first look at members of committee. This is the amendment is for Councillor Palosa. So if you would like me to go to Councillor Palosa, okay. Go ahead, Councillor. Sorry, and thank you for the mover and seconder. As a non-member of this committee, I’m trying to do committee work here.

[1:29:41] As per the amendments, you’ve heard from residents. These ones, I have other questions of my own infotential things. These ones strictly came at the last meeting, the public liaison committee. They actually had voted on things and I was in agreement, so they come forward. Part C, as we see on the screen, would be to remove the proposed cap. I appreciate that staff proposed the cap to help expedite decision-making and the idea of this money being flown into the community. They have projects in the works behind the scenes that they are working on that will benefit the area.

[1:30:19] They’re just worried about the money being removed before they actually have a chance to finalize any contracts and work to get the money out. Part D is number eight, which would be the number of meetings they have. Staff recommend four, they meet sixth. Some would prefer more, but they will be content with the six. I’ll also note that it’s not mandate that staff be there at all six, that if they could do their own minutes or want some other things that they could do that as well. E, they just wanted to make sure that the money for those new funds, they aren’t support the new funds that staff spoke to, just the money doesn’t come out of the CEEP or MP, I missed a letter in there, and that as that money and those two funds for the area enhancement fund and the enhanced public property maintenance program would be actually city staff directed of how those funds are spent and not PLC directed, just hoping that committee and council and the PLC can get an update on those annual report that staff said would come anyways of just what did get done or where were the needs I identified in the community, just for everyone’s information.

[1:31:37] Thank you, Councillor. Okay, looking to members of committee for any comments or questions. Councillor Trussell, go ahead. Thank you, these are questions which may or may not lead to an addition to perhaps a part G or part H depending on the answers. My first issue to the chair is, I’m very disturbed by the speeding, there should come as no surprise, I’m often disturbed by speeding.

[1:32:12] My neighborhood, their neighborhood and speeding garbage trucks are inexcusable for two additional reasons. Number one, it’s city employees. Councillor, I do need to ask you to keep it to the amendment, but you can go ahead. Well, I’d like to have an opportunity to ask some general questions. You can do that at the main motion. You will have a new five-minute speaking time but we’re on the amendment now. So if you have any questions for the amendment, I can cycle back to you on the main motion. Thank you, nevermind. Okay, go ahead, Councillor McCallis.

[1:32:46] Thank you through the chair. There’s plenty of amendments. ‘Cause I think staff touched on this in their presentation but I just kind of want clarity. In terms of part C with the cap, I know you had obviously raised questions in terms of just the risk. Can you speak a bit more to that? Just flush it out a bit more just ‘cause it’s kind of glossed over a little bit there and just have a better understanding of that. And then in terms of the meetings, you’d mention like the administrative burden but from the sounds of it, it could be accommodated with perhaps rotating staff for, you know, the minutes being provided.

[1:33:22] Just if there’s any like mitigating measures that could still allow for the six meetings, just could speak a bit more to those. Thank you, Councillor Mischer. Thank you. I’ll certainly start and perhaps Mr. Lo see or Ms. Chambers may wish to add something. There are no concerns with the amendments provided by Councillor Palosa and brought on to the committee. We can accommodate everything that is there. We had proposed the caps as an intent to hope that the money would continue to be the same amount in total. It would just get spent versus accumulating. So certainly all of those amendments are things that can be accommodated by staff if that’s the little committee and council.

[1:33:56] Thank you. Okay, go back to it. If staff have anything else to add? Okay, Councillor, go ahead. Thank you and through the chair. No, those were my only two concerns. I appreciate the opportunity to ask them here. And I also want to just say thank you to the Councillor for bringing them forward. Appreciate that yourself and Councillor Pervall have gone to those and had that direct interaction. So I’d be willing to support these moving forward. Thank you.

[1:34:28] Thank you. Councillor Pervall, go ahead. I’ll just make a comment. I will be supporting all four of which are in front of us and I will speak more when it comes to the main motion. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Trussell, I’m gonna go to you first and then I’ll go to the Deputy Mayor as he’s the visiting member of this committee. Go ahead, Councillor. Yes, I will be supporting these changes. I thank the Councillor for bringing these. I will have some additional amendments that I’d like to make but I’ll wait until after this passes to bring those up. Thank you. Thank you. And Councillor, Deputy Mayor Lewis, go ahead.

[1:35:02] Thank you, Chair. Just one question through you to staff. Members, a member of the public suggested that the community mitigated measures fund in the $1 million cap would not be sufficient to deal with contaminated water situation should they arise. And so through you to staff, if we were in fact dealing with a situation, a large contamination of a water supply, just like any other sort of significant large scale emergency, whether it be, you know, a trained derailment or a flood or something like that, in a situation where there was a significant contamination of water supply, we wouldn’t be relying on the community mitigated measures fund, but instead looking to emergency funds and likely even funding through the province through an emergency measures to address a large scale situation like that, am I correct?

[1:35:56] Thank you, I’ll go to my chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Certainly that is correct. The funds in the mitigated measures funds are meant to enhance services for residents, as well as the environment above and beyond the basics that are provided for their residential place type. So no, we certainly would not be looking to that fund to deal with clean upper decontamination or any of those sorts of things. Thank you, go ahead. Yeah, so I wanted that on the record. I think it’s a very important piece of information for people to be aware of. That’s not where we would be cleaning up a significant contamination issue.

[1:36:31] So I will just say on these amendments, when it comes to council, certainly DE and F, I don’t have an issue with, perhaps one million is not the right amount, but I do think that there should be a cap on that fund. So I’ll follow up with some discussions with Councilor Plosa on that one in particular, ‘cause I wouldn’t support removing the cap entirely. Thank you. - Okay. Any other questions, comments, in chambers, online, visiting or members of the committee? Okay, that’s the last call. I will call the question.

[1:37:15] Posing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, that amendment has passed. We are now on the main motion as amended. Councillor Trassel, go ahead. Thank you very much. I’d like to raise two issues for potential amendment. Number one is the speeding trucks and the conduct of the trucks in terms of not taking reasonable measures to make sure that that trash doesn’t pull off the trucks, that’s one. And the second one is the odor, and that will involve some questions about our current nuisance bylaws.

[1:37:48] So with respect to the first issue, in all due respect, I don’t think it’s adequate to say we will talk to our drivers and remind them they have to comply with the speed limit. I’m wondering, have there been complaints filed by members of the public regarding excessive speeds that your division is aware of? Thank you, Councillor. I’ll go to Ms. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We certainly have received concerns about speeding in the past, and we take those seriously. We have disciplinary processes for our own employees.

[1:38:23] Should there be speed violations? There are also a number of commercial haulers that access this particular landfill, and we try our best certainly to provide information to them, enforcement of that, however, would have to be a police matter. We will be working with our team to manage our drivers as best we can, and I don’t have the numbers of complaints, we would have to pull that from service London. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, through the chair. Are there standards regarding the over capacity of the trucks that your department has? Thank you, Ms. Chambers.

[1:39:03] Yes, there are, sorry, through the chair. There are capacity limits for the weights of the truck that they have to comply with. Thank you, go ahead, Councillor. Have you received, through the chair, have you received complaints about the excessive capacity on any of the trucks? Thank you. I will. Again, through the chair, we’d have to pull some data on that. I have not familiar with the complaints right now. Okay, thank you, go ahead, Councillor. Okay, I’ll just comment from what I’m hearing from the public that is an issue. So I’m going to offer an amendment asking for an additional report back from, and I want to frame this right, Ms. Scheer, in terms of naming the right agency traffic division, or would it be by-law, or regarding the enforcement, taken on speed and capacity, both the aspects.

[1:40:04] How would I frame that? Thank you, Councillor. I can go to Ms. Scheer for this one. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don’t think we need to identify who will prepare the report, because if you sign it to staff, we will engage the appropriate agencies internally, as well as LPS for required. In terms of language, if you’re looking for a report back on enforcement and compliance of speed, vehicle weights, and tarping requirements, we can certainly provide that information back via staff report. Thank you. Yes, and I would, through the chair, I would like to incorporate exactly what she just said. I can, into an amendment which would be part G, that civic administration be directed to report back regarding, say that again, please.

[1:40:47] Regarding vehicle speeds, weights, and containment systems, essentially tarping requirements. Okay, thank you. And just to confirm, Ms. Scheer, you need an amendment for that. You’re not able to give that without the amendment to the report. We actually would not require an amendment, certainly we could bring that to our own workload and provide that back, yes. But if you prefer to have it as direction to staff, that’s appropriate as well. There’d be no financial implications for us preparing it, so it’s just a matter of bringing up the resources to do the work. Okay, I’ll go to Councilor, go ahead. Could you please add the word leakage to the A4 set?

[1:41:23] Okay, we can, just a second. And Ms. Scheer, could you say back that amendment just one more time in full? So, Mr. Chair, what I would suggest is we are looking at vehicle speeds, weights, and containment of loads, including leakage and loose debris. I’m gonna put this, I am gonna look for a seconder on this, but I wanna read back the motion to make sure that the intent is what the mover is looking for.

[1:42:40] So, the motion to add a new part, part G, staff be directed to report back to the CPSC with respect to enforcement taken related to vehicle speeds, weight, weights and contaminant of loads, containment, sorry, containment of loads, including leakage. Looking for a seconder? Seconder by Councilor Cutting. Okay. - Mr. Chair, for just for clarification, is that all vehicles are just city vehicles? Good question. - City of London vehicles.

[1:43:13] I’ll go to the mover. My intention would be for it to apply to all vehicles. Okay, Ms. Scheer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Certainly we can provide it with the information we have and what we’re able to collect ourselves. We would not be in a position to do a comprehensive monitoring program in order to obtain that information, but we can go through service London, previous enforcement actions, the data we have from our scales. And I imagine we can probably pick up some speed data using our equipment from traffic. So we’ll scope that out if that’s appropriate. If we are looking to do a comprehensive review of every vehicle entering, obviously that would be a very different matter and taking some time and money.

[1:43:49] Thank you, Councilor. I appreciate that and it might require another motion in the next iteration of this committee, but for now I think that’s perfect. Okay, so leave the motion as is. Councilor Cutting, go ahead. Thank you, Chair, through you. And I want to thank Councilor Chesso for bringing this forward because as our speaker said today, this is a major problem for us speeding on these roads. And we have speeding everywhere in the city, but we have a sensitive issue by the landfill site. And I do want to apologize for the speeding trucks. It’s inexcusable.

[1:44:26] And as Councilor Trusso said, garbage that’s falling off the side of the truck. These things can be mitigated and we will work towards that. So thank you for coming today. Thank you for speaking to this. And I look forward to staff’s report on this. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. Okay, so on the amendment by Councilor Trusso and seconded by Councilor Cutty, looking for any other comments or speakers, questions, comments, concerns. Councilor Ploza, go ahead. Thank you for this amendment. Looking forward to see what coming back.

[1:44:59] I’ll note that it’s just not garbage coming off some of the trucks or other waste going out to that area. It’s also as indicated, the leakage coming some of the trucks onto city roads as they come from out of town to use facilities to leave their waste behind some buildup on our roads happening on that end as well. That staff is aware of working to mitigate. So just making sure that committee is aware of this as well, that the threat that the problem expands past simple garbage. Thank you, Councilor. And just looking at staff to take that note. Yes, noted Mr. Chair and we are aware of the issue.

[1:45:33] We work with our team in road ops as well to try to clean it up and to deal with those haulers that are not necessarily watertight when it comes to the liquid element of garbage. Thank you. Okay, for the amendment. Looking for further comments or questions online. Okay, let’s call the question. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

[1:46:12] Okay, we are back on the motion. The main motion as amended, twice over. Go ahead, Councillor Trussell. Thank you, through the chair. My next series of questions probably is going to be directed to legal staff or bylaw enforcement. What is the current status of odors in city bylaws with respect to standards regarding offensive owners which in the opinion of council are affecting people’s use and enjoyment of the property or could so affect the use and enjoyment of property?

[1:46:51] Is are there currently robust odor bylaws and effector do we need to look at bringing them in? Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. I’m going to give staff a couple of minutes for this answer. So let’s just hold off on that and I’ll go back to you in a second and I’ll go back to Councillor Mischer. Ms. Marshall is here and- I can go to Ms. Marshall. If anyone is ready to answer that now I will go to you. If you need some time I can come back. Ms. Marshall. Through the chair.

[1:47:25] With respect to the landfill it’s a different process in terms of complying with odor issues. So under the, I believe it’s the environmental protection act. I believe that there would be a approval environmental compliance approval for the landfill which would have the odor obligation set out in that document. Thank you Ms. Chair. Just as a clarification that’s very helpful information. We are regulated differently than say an industrial producer we are regulated directly by the province under our environmental compliance and monitored therefore by MECP as well.

[1:48:08] Thank you, Councillor. Is it, would it be fair to say then that there is a bit of a gap in terms of how residents can file contemporary complaints if they feel there’s an odor issue with the city? Thank you. I will go to Ms. Chair. I wouldn’t say that there’s necessarily a gap but I think there’s an acknowledgement that the management of a landfill is a public asset that is required for the healthy function of a city is somewhat different than say an industrial manufacturing facility.

[1:48:44] So there is a difference in regulation as a result of the function of a landfill and the nature of how landfills are managed. That said, there’s been investment over many decades to deal with things like managing landfill gases and odors. It is impossible however to manage a landfill without odor. Thank you. Go ahead, Councillor. Putting, thank you. Here, putting aside bylaws and regulations, putting those aside and looking at simply common law liability issues regarding causing a nuisance to adjacent property owners in so far as, in so far as the, this facility is operated by the city.

[1:49:32] Does the city incur any risk of litigation regarding odors? Thank you, Councillor. I saw Ms. Chambers in the back. I can go to either Ms. Chair or Ms. Chambers. Thank you and through the Chair. Effectively, we have to comply with our environmental compliance approval through the Ministry of Environment. As long as we do that, then we’re not at risk of being liable for odors per se. So, you know, one of the biggest things that we did was it came into effect April, 2024, was we increased the capacity of our flaring station and it took in so much more landfill gas.

[1:50:10] So, odors have gone down in the last year and a half considerably, we had a report from the MECP at our last PLC meeting. So, efforts have been made to reduce the odors. And, but I know this has been a longstanding issue, but there are these physical capital improvements that we have done in response to these issues. And it was $4.6 million invested at the landfill to address that. But back to your question about liability, as long as we meet our ECA requirements, then we are not liable for odors. Thank you.

[1:50:41] Thank you for that. Under the current regulations then that we’re complying with, do residents have the ability to file complaints with somebody regarding odors? And what is that process? Thank you and through the Chair, the odor complaints are processed by the MECP, Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks, and they keep a record of those. They also copy city staff on those odor complaints as well. Thank you, go ahead, Councillor. To your knowledge, through the Chair, to your knowledge of any residents made complaints to that agency with respect to odors?

[1:51:19] Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you and through the Chair, yes, we are aware of odor complaints issued to the MECP, and we keep a record of those as well. It odors, as Ms. Chair alluded to, are inevitable at a landfill. We do our best to capture the gases as best we can, but there are certain days of the year where the odors will prevail. Thank you, go ahead, Councillor. Through the Chair, putting aside whether or not we should do this, does the city have the power under the Municipal Act to enact regulations that go beyond the provincial regulations under our general nuisance abatement powers, which are quite broad?

[1:51:58] Thank you, Councillor. Ms. Marshall is just getting to her seat. Go ahead. Through the Chair, that’s not something that I would know off the top of my head, would have to do some research into that. Thank you. Go ahead, Councillor. So I guess the motion I’d like to make is I think I’m running out of time, is that Steph be directed to report back to CPSC with respect to the enforcement of odor regulations, including whether the city of London has the jurisdiction to enact further odor abatement regulations.

[1:52:42] Thank you, Councillor, just a second. Okay, before I go to see if there’s a seconder, just cleaning this up and then I’m gonna go back, read it out and then I’ll look for the seconder. I do see Councillor Pribble has already indicated he would second. Okay, I’m just gonna read this out.

[1:53:18] So that staff be directed to report back to the CPSC with respect to the enforcement of odor regulations, including whether the city of London has the jurisdiction to enact odor abatement regulations. Further, odor? Okay, I’m just gonna read it one more time then. Okay, and that mover, seconder, good. Okay, that’s on the floor, looking for a speaker’s list. Chambers online, let’s call, okay, let’s call that question. I was saying the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, we’re back on the main motion, looking for main motion as amended, main motion as amended.

[1:53:56] Comments, questions? Okay, and that’s on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor, looking for a speaker’s list. Okay, let’s call that question. I was saying the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, we’re back on the main motion, looking for main motion as amended, main motion as amended.

[1:54:34] Questions? Councillor McAllister, go ahead. Thank you and through the chair. I just wanna say again, thank you to the public. Thank you to committee colleagues in terms of the discussion we’ve had today, very helpful. And I just wanted to kind of offer some of my own thoughts on this. Having former landfills, I have at least two. I do feel the pain in terms of what residents are experiencing, but just to say, unfortunately, some of these issues never go away. You deal with them for decades, a lot of the issues I’m dealing with happen well before I was born, but I do understand where you’re coming from.

[1:55:11] And it’s a reality that pretty much every major municipality has to face in terms of landfills, but to what we’ve tried to do today, I think there are mitigating things we can do. And I just wanna say, you know, we do hear you. We might not all be on the CAHPS committee when this comes back, but that we’ve taken the time to, you know, hear you today and try to make what comes back to us more amenable to the folks who are dealing with this on a daily basis. So thank you again for coming up today. Thank you, Councillor. I have Councillor Palosa next. I’m putting myself on the speakers list, too, if you want me to go before or after you.

[1:55:45] Go before me, please. Okay. I just have some quick comments, so I’m not gonna hand over the chair. But I appreciate members of the public coming out and letting us know your thoughts and concerns. I do see some work has been done here on committee to help you with that. I do understand that you met with Councillor Palosa a couple days ago. She was able to bring some motions, some amendments, anyways, that are speaking to your concerns as well. I am in support of everything that I saw here today. I will be in support of the main motion. I hope that that does bring some assistance for what everybody is calling for. And I look forward to this coming on the next cycle and working further on it.

[1:56:23] So like Councillor McAllister said, we may not be on the next cycle of this committee. We may be so as well. But when the time comes, we are all gonna vote on it at council. So I appreciate the members of the public coming out. Thank you for the discussion here from members of the committee and visiting members. And thank you, Councillor Palosa, for bringing that amendment to the table. I will now hand it over to Councillor Palosa. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, first of all, to the residents who came into town today. And for having met with me over the years, I would be remiss if I didn’t say this was a long-standing report that we’ve been eagerly awaiting for since my term on council, joining it.

[1:57:07] So glad that is before us and really grateful to staff that there’s gonna be annual updates and a four-year review coming back. I think that would really help these conversations and sharing information to community and council. I do have several questions. I’ll start with the one that I know staff have an answer for for sure. It involved Mr. Lucy and Ms. Chambers. As you would have seen in Matt and Dougal’s correspondence, it was concerned about, as you heard, some of these properties are long-serving family properties.

[1:57:41] And just there was a 2014 by-law staff’s report before you today only mentioned the changes they’re looking at making. So just on the public record, as for the residents who couldn’t attend today, I did say that we’re gonna be everything here is recorded and they can go back and watch it later. So just to help that good information out of just that answer you provided in writing today for the property protection plan, making sure that it is in play when properties are inherited and passed down through generations. Thank you, Councillor. I will go to, I’ll go to staff. Thank you and through the chair.

[1:58:18] Yes, with respect to the program being available to the estate of deceased owners, basically the property value protection plan will still apply to the estate and subsequent owners who acquire the land, whether it be a parent or a spouse, someone, a partner in the home, they would be also eligible for the property value protection plan. So there’s no date on those ones. It’s just estate sales of those in the area. Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you. A conversation that was noted in some of the correspondence as well. I would like to think that three of the people who submitted correspondence were with us today as well.

[1:58:57] It’s the city owned asset and I’ve no doubt there is emergency plans for that area. Looking to see where and if they are publicly available or if they’re more of a confidential thing as some of other emergency response plans might be. So if they’re able to be shared with the PLC or members of public, are they publicly available already? And if so, where to find them? And if not, just perhaps reasoning that they’re there and just why not. Thank you.

[1:59:29] We will go to Miss Chambers again. Go ahead. Thank you and through the chair. Just with respect to emergencies of what nature is one clarification, I would ask. I will say in terms of risk of groundwater contamination or air or anything like that, it’s very heavily monitored and meets parental requirements. So it wouldn’t be risks of those items per se. Perhaps a bit of clarification about the risk. Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you. I know there’s fires out there. I do run along myself when there was one at the waste recovery, but it was fires and some of the questions were around gas that the landfill doesn’t make gas.

[2:00:06] We’re collecting it, we’re burning it off. Like what happens if something goes astray, just looking to see if there is plans and where those plans would be if they’re publicly available. Thank you. Go ahead, Ms. Cher. Certainly I can start, Mr. Chair. Mr. Lewis, let me have something to add to that. We do have emergency response plans related to our assets out there, including leechate collection, fire response, the flare system. We do not publish emergency response plans like that generally because they could expose potential vulnerability. Someone could take advantage of nefariously, but those have been developed. They are developed with our emergency planning folks at the city as well as our friends at London fire.

[2:00:42] Thank you. Go ahead, Council. Thank you. As I said, I had no doubt that we had something just wanted to know if it was available and I appreciate the comment. Another conversation piece raised within correspondence and chambers today had to deal with the severing at home from family farmlands. I know the city has agricultural policies in place, trying to keep agricultural land together to a certain degree, looking to see if this was considered in a special situation around W12A. If it was contemplated allowing an exception to those city made rules.

[2:01:21] Thank you. Do you want to take that request back and consider it mindfully? So we need to don’t necessarily need Council direction for that, but we can provide you a response to that prior to Council. Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you. I’ll accept that. If Mr. Mathers would like direction, happy to make you make something since I’m not a member of committee and I can’t, but also happy to take on my word that I’ll come back as we see it as I know. Word 12 is a very unique split of rule and agriculture, and I appreciate why that rules in place.

[2:01:59] But I do believe we have some different things at play here as well. I’m not sure if Ms. Share is trying to signal you, Mr. Chair. I will go to Ms. Share and also to Councillor Palazzo’s question, do you need amendment to our motion for that too? But I’ll go to Ms. Share. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don’t believe we do need a motion for that. We’re happy to provide that information. We’ve got a few things we can answer very quickly and probably do by email in advance of Council related to the number of properties. It was asked earlier. These longer-term pieces related to vehicle management, the ability to set our own regulations that exceed provincial requirements, and with respect to the severance issue, we can include back in this policy when it comes back in Q1 and have that information in more detail as part of that report.

[2:02:40] Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you. I’m looking forward to Q1 as I will be. My residents don’t know the incoming chair of this committee. So just helps with those communications and I’ll be here regardless. My final question through you to staff, I did have a motion drafted. I didn’t move this one prior. Councillor Pribble would be aware of it. It’s looking for clarification. You’ve heard from residents that over the years there’s been different arrangements made with when it’s Westminster Township for the landfill. Obviously, there’s no more of the city now has the landfill looking for that history.

[2:03:20] And you’ve heard residents speak. I’ve heard a few different times given. I believed it was the properties. They were mainly questioning was being between 2009 and 2015 of the properties that were sold that would not have been available for the property protection property value protection plan. Just looking for some clarification for that. Thank you. I will go to staff in the back. Thank you through the chair. The date is actually 2006.

[2:03:54] At that time, that’s when the area plan that the city had undertaken. Prior to that, I think it started in 2005. That’s when the conclusion was made that the W12A landfill site will remain a waste disposal asset available to the city. Thank you, Mr. Losi. Councillor, you have 30 seconds. Thank you. So just for clarification, it was 2006 to 2015. Go ahead with the current policy as written is homes that were purchased after 2006 or not eligible. Thank you.

[2:04:28] Go ahead. Thank you. Point of order, sorry. Could this staff member just move the mic a bit closer? It’s very difficult to hear you. Apologies. Sorry. The way the current policy is written homes that were purchased after August 31st, 2006 are not eligible for the property value protection plan. Thank you. Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you. I might need a brief moment more. So what I was really trying to look at is what you heard from those residents of conversation of those properties that were purchased between apparently August 2006 to the new by-law being implemented in 2015.

[2:05:10] I guess really is 2014. That’s why I was trying to get at. I’ll leave those comments with you and I can always bring something for Council. Thank you, Councillor. I am looking. Oh, I have Councillor Pribble actually put his hand up. Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you. I would like to make some comments and I’ll start with the City of London. We do take certain actions and initiatives to address these issues, purchasing new flair. We are doing the regular measuring now and we are addressing the issues. Certainly, issues are being addressed.

[2:05:45] We are meeting the ECA requirements. Having said that from my own experience in that area, going there sometimes on a regular basis in terms of the order, the truck speeding and contaminating our roads that are really in the middle are black. Those are true, very important, crucial issues. I’m very glad that we passed the motions that were passed and what I want to say is that even though we take these measures, proactive actions or taking the actions, we honestly need to do more. And we need to do more.

[2:06:18] I hope that when these reports come back, that we are going to be able to evaluate them and start being even more proactive in these actions to make it, to make the life of all the Londoners better. And again, we do need to realize that we have half a million, always say we have half a million of Londoners, half a million of population and the waste, the garbage goes to one area. And those people are right here. I know it’s much less percentage of half a million, but they are, as they mentioned, they are taxpayers as well. I do appreciate them coming out here.

[2:06:54] Thank you for, I guess, thank you for your understanding. And I do understand that you are being vocal because we do need to take stronger actions. And bottom line is deliver results for all the Londoners, including yourselves. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. All right, I’m looking for any comments, questions, last call for the main motion as amended. None, Councillor Palazzo, you have no seconds left. Proceed, Julie. Can you just tell them that this goes to Council on November 4th for a final decision if they want to watch? This should go to Council on November 4th.

[2:07:30] If you want to watch, it will be live streamed on YouTube and you would be able to watch it also on our city of London agendas and meetings in minutes, I believe. If you Google that, you’ll be able to find that as well. Thank you. Okay, last call. Okay, let’s call the question, closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Okay, that’s it for schedule items. Next is items for direction.

[2:08:03] We have one poll request. That’s item 2.4. That’s the 2025 parkland dedication bylaw. CP 25 update. This was pulled by Councillor Pribble. So I will go to Councilor Pribble. All right, Chair, just to, I know I’m a visiting member, but as a point of order, that’s a deferred matter. Is that not deferred from the, sorry if I’m reading the wrong item? I believe it was consent to items for direction. Let me confirm. Yeah, so that makes it a, so it’s consent. So it’s a deferred matter. It goes under section five at the end of the other items in section five.

[2:08:39] Okay, just a second. Deputy Mayor, sometimes you do items for direction, but generally it goes as a last item for items for direction. So we’ve also had it for deferred matter. So I’m okay to put this at deferred matters as well.

[2:09:13] And I’ll put that after the two items we have on that. So it will be after 5.1 and 5.2. The committee is good with that. Okay. All right, so no items for items for direction. So next is deferred matters additional business. The first motion is from Councillor Trusso, improving bylaw compliance communications. I will say, and I did speak with Councillor on this because I don’t see an emergent nature of this one. I do want to refer it to the next cycle of this meeting, which will be on the 10th of November, I believe. Again, if you’ll allow me to interject chair.

[2:09:59] Deferred matters or additional business do not require them to be urgent unless they’re coming on a council agenda, not on a committee agenda. Communications from Councillors can be added without them needing to meet the urgent requirement. Just stand by. We’re just conferring with the council procedural policy.

[2:11:01] Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Just going through my notes and the clerk’s notes as well. The reason we are going to be referring this, or I’m asking for a referral because it does stay in section 391 for deferred matters or additional business that items should be dealt under deferred matters additional business.

[2:12:03] Those items shall include those matters contained in the deferred matters list of the standing committee and any other business of an emergent nature that must be dealt with before. The next regular meeting of the standing committee. So that’s why I’m asking for that referral because I don’t see it as an urgent nature right now. So not to get into the procedure of weeds with you chair, but you haven’t given the counselor even an opportunity to address why he feels it should not be deferred here. You went right away to ask for a referral. The counselor should be able to make his argument as to why this should be dealt with today. I don’t have a problem with that.

[2:12:39] I’ll go with council trust, but I am going to be requesting that referral. Thank you very much to the chair. First of all, I should take responsibility for not getting this in by the deadline. I should have gotten it in by the deadline. Before filing it, I wanted to make sure that my seconder was happy with everything. And I also in particular wanted to have an exchange and I did have an exchange with staff. Again, that’s no excuse for not having an end. But I do believe that this motion is not asking for any immediate action by way of instituting a bylaw. It’s simply asking for a staff report.

[2:13:21] So the difference in the actual difference on the ground between deferring this and dealing with it today is actually minuscule, and I don’t think to be any prejudice. I would move to not to overrule the chair, but to say not withstanding that rule that we could hear it today. And one of the reasons for that is, well, I guess my initial argument was we don’t have a very busy calendar today. I don’t know if that’s true anymore, but I don’t know what’s coming up next time. And I do want to represent to everybody that I did have extensive conversations with staff about this.

[2:14:00] And I’m satisfied that this is not going to be a controversial item. Thank you. Thank you. So we don’t have a motion on the floor, so I’m not going to be going around the committee. I’d like to move then that we hear that not withstanding the fact that this is being considered an emergent motion that we hear and dispose of it at this meeting today. Okay. Before I go to that, I was referring to the council procedural policy, which does show that it is not an emergent matter. However, if we can avoid moving the not withstanding motion, I’m going to look at members of committee and I’m going to ask you if you would to oppose us hearing this motion and moving this motion and discussing it now at this committee.

[2:14:48] So if anybody is opposed to that, put your hand up. Okay. So we will go against the council procedural bylaw and we will hear this motion, even though I have determined it is not an emergent matter. That will happen at the end of the deferred matters list. So we’re going to put that on hold, and we’ll get back to that once we hear the first two items for that. So there’s no motion on the floor. I know I should probably quit while I’m ahead, but a visiting member has indicated to me that he has to leave shortly and would like to address this and I’m wondering if we could just as a courtesy to the deputy mayor, just just do this now. I’ll put your motion on the floor. Okay, I’d like to move that civic administration be directed to conduct an environmental scan and selected Ontario cities with respect to different approaches undertaken to communicate the status of bylaw enforcement complaints to report the results back to the CPSC by second quarter of twenty twenty six such report should consider recommendations, including the potential amendments to bylaw number C P O L dash four ten dash one sixty eight being the municipal compliance service policy clause four point seven, as well as any associated costs of implementation. Thank you looking for a seconder seconder by council. Okay, we have a motion on the floor looking for a speaker’s list.

[2:16:32] Just confirm confirming no members of committee like to speak. I’m going to go to the deputy mayor. Okay, go ahead. Thank you, Sharon. You may have some members who wish to speak after me, but I appreciate the opportunity to address this before I have to leave. I cannot say how strongly supportive I am of this motion. And I hope colleagues will recognize that the track record is usually when Council trust and I agree it’s a pretty good idea. Doesn’t happen all the time, but when we find common ground. It’s usually for a very good reason. And I have to say, I appreciate the conversations that I’ve been able to have with staff as well with Ms. Feffer in particular. The importance of having a tool like we see, and I don’t often reference the city of Toronto, and I do want to see what some other municipalities might have, but how the city of Toronto has the same sort of online mapping tool that we currently have just for our residential rental unit licensing or zoning map, but to be able to see bylaw open complaints resolve complaints so that we can keep residents informed and share information that yes, bylaws looking into a property bylaw has dealt with an issue at that property, or for them to be able to look it up themselves without getting into the particular of individuals names of what the outcome of a complaint might have been, whether it was a warning, whether compliance was achieved, whether there was a fine issued. We all know that we get a large number of bylaw complaints in our inboxes from our residents.

[2:18:03] People care about the neighborhoods they live in. They want to see them looking good. There’s concerns about, you know, unlicensed rental units. There’s concerns about yard upkeep, garbage management, all sorts of things. For us to have a better, more transparent communication tool with our constituents. We’ve actually in our council policy as referenced in this motion. We’ve actually handcuffed ourselves and we’ve often said, well, legislation limits us to what we can say. And there is some truth to that legislation does limit some of the communication, but we’ve actually over handcuffed ourselves through our own internal policies to limit that communication even further than is legally necessary. And I think given the volume of bylaw concerns that we get as word counselors that having staff go look to amend the language so they can share a little more information back to us when it’s appropriate so that residents can also look up some information themselves, or that bylaw can share some information back to the resident if they’ve got direct contact.

[2:19:05] Again, respecting privacy, respecting with the outcome, maybe, but have that communication so that residents are aware that their concerns are actually being addressed. They may not be satisfied with the outcome still, but at least to be able to tell them that bylaw visited, address the issue in an appropriate manner. That is key to what’s being proposed here. I have some, you know, I was going to say in this case, there were some suggestions I was going to have for an amendment, but I don’t need that because I believe the communications I’ve had with staff that Council trust us had with staff. And probably others of you are sufficient that I trust the report we are going to get back is going to provide some options for us to pick from to address this in a meaningful way.

[2:19:48] And I would say just with respect to the timing, while it would only delay by a cycle, I think it is important to keep in mind, especially because in my experience in almost seven years here come the spring when the snow melts, we get a lot more of those bylaw complaints and it would be nice to have something coming back to us so that we know we can tell people in the spring when those complaints are coming, we’re working on a new system of transparency and quite honestly, because I’d like to get this dealt within this term of Council. I don’t want to kick this down the road to the next term of Council.

[2:20:23] And as we get into a next year with an election cycle that’s coming up, I would prefer to have this Council deal with it. And so I think it is timely to bring it forward now so that staff can start the work rather than wait for the approval to start the work. Thank you. Other speakers, comments, questions, go ahead, Council. Thank you, we started took in this communication, even before Mrs. Feffer started in her new position, but we decided to wait for her when she’s to make this happen under her leadership. And I think I don’t want to repeat everything what the computer mayor said, but I really think that we do understand that there are certain privacy policies we do, but on the other hand, we need more information and more transparency.

[2:21:08] And information that we can also as Council’s share with the constituents. And so I’m very happy, glad that we are including in the agenda today, because I think that even though it’s one month, I believe it will be passed to this committee and the Council again as well. And I believe that they can, our staff can incorporate it into their working plan and the sooner the better, so we can have it at the latest by the end of Q to 2026 next year. And the decisions can be made completely done before the next Council starts. Thank you.

[2:21:45] Thank you. Looking for any other comments or questions. No. Okay. Well, I am just going to say from the chair, I’m fully supported this as well. We’ve had many conversations about lots of things when it comes to compliance. What’s the status? You know, what kind of communications are coming out from my conversations with staff and with colleagues. It does seem that there is some areas we can open things up. I’m in full support of this motion, and hopefully we can get back some answers on how we can open up some of the areas so we don’t have a, I guess, a black hole when it comes to anything compliance. I know a lot of people are asking for this.

[2:22:28] Obviously, we have to respect privacy and we have to respect a lot of the regulation that we’re operating within, but from what I understand, there is the ability to open it up just a little bit. So I appreciate the Councillor and the Councillors bringing this to committee and you’ll see my full support. With that, I will make one last call for questions, comments, none. Okay, let’s call the question. Those in the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay. Oh, actually, we’re still still in order. I made a mistake on the last one.

[2:23:12] I said I was going to put this at the bottom of deferred matters. It was not. Okay. So the next one is the last one. This is my item. So I got a hand this over to my vice chair. I have the chair recognizing council for go ahead. Thank you. Okay. So I will be moving this motion. It is for civic administration to be directed to continue the one hour free on street parking in the core area. Through the parking services honk app funded using the existing approved funding from the economic development reserve fund until the end of this year. I am bringing this motion forward because at the moment, the free one hour parking is slated for termination by the end of this month.

[2:23:59] It has been beneficial to businesses in the core area. Council just so you don’t get too far to align. I do need a seconder for you. Looking for a seconder. Oh, sorry. You. Okay. I will second it. So you continue to train a five. Go ahead. Thank you. Vice chair presiding officer. So I’m bringing this forward because I have obviously have businesses who are depending on this. And at this time, I think that this is needed. So obviously, this brings us to the end of 2025 there. Staff have confirmed that there is existing funds within the existing approved budget for this program that was supposed to be ending this month.

[2:24:37] So we can tap into those funds as it is to carry this over to the end of the year. So I’ll leave it there and I’m looking for your support. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. And you just used up one minute. So you still got four to go. Okay. Looking for other speakers. Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you and through the chair. Once again, I’m going to depart from my usual. I’m not sure what the right word is. I don’t want to have to sanction myself for saying something bad about myself, but I’m going to depart from my usual crustiness about parking. And I’m just going to say the fact that there is a funding source for this and the fact that there is a demonstrated benefit to downtown at a time when they really need some additional help.

[2:25:26] Not to mention the fact that we’ve just done it for an adjacent area would lead me to suspend my usual skepticism about this type of thing. So only for a few months till the end of 2025. So I really wish the downtown merchants a very successful holiday season and you have my support for this. Thank you. Hey, thank you, Councillor. Looking for other speakers on this. Not seeing any. Do you have a question? Okay. I’ll go back to you, Councillor. Okay. Nothing. Any other hands go up and I can’t see online, but I’m guessing no. I’ll just make a quick comment, then, as I have the mic. I’ll say I’m supportive of this. Councillor Trozzo kind of took exactly what I was thinking.

[2:26:17] It’s just the end of the year, but we’ve also kind of set the precedent in terms of sporting adjacent areas. So, yeah, I just wish the best for the downtown merchants through the holiday months. Go ahead, Councillor Ferri. You do have your question. I want to make a comment. I appreciate the comments from Councillor Trozzo and Councillor McAllister, and I’m hoping that the other Councillors are able to support me on this one as well. One, just one very simple question. Because the cycle for Council lands on, I believe, the 10th of November, and this is slated to end at the end of this month with this committee approval. If we get it, will the program stop during that time? Are we able to continue it at least until the next council potential approval?

[2:27:06] Well, it’s November 4th, I believe, is the next council, actually. But, yes, the bridge funding, if Mr. May, there’s one to speak to that. Through the chair, I want to suggest that if this is something that is supported by committee, that from an administrator perspective, we will wait until the final council decision has been something that’s been brought forward. So, I think it would be prudent to wait until after the council decision to finalize and eliminate the program, and also takes us a day or two to be able to make some of those tweaks and be able to turn that off and hock. So, we would extend this until the council decision is made.

[2:27:47] Okay, thank you. So, yes, take your time. We’ll say it’s, you know, two to five business days to process or something like that. But it’s good to hear that I’ll continue. Not seeing any other hands. We can open this for voting. Five to zero. I will pass the chair back over to council for all right. Thank you. That is it for the, we do still have the one item, the park land dedication. Oh, right. Just a second. So we have kind of messed this up a little bit for procedure. This item is supposed to be under items for direction. I did have the clerk search for that. I appreciate that. If items are pulled from the consent, they must be put on items for direction.

[2:28:59] Because we have already moved on beyond items for direction and we’re still in the schedule or sorry, the deferred matters. I am going to hear it here, but just for this committee to understand consent items go to items for direction at the bottom of the list. If there’s anything proceeding that. So with that said, I’m going to go to the item that was pulled by counselor, and that was for 2.4, the 2025 park land dedication by law, CP 25 update. I’m going to look to committee for any motions and then we can start building a speakers list from there. Recommendation or, or amendments or anything. Put the staff recommendation on the floor. Okay. Staff recommendation moved. Seconded. Okay. Looking for speakers list.

[2:29:52] Counselor. Looking for speakers list. Counselor. Thank you. And I would like to make the amendment to the clause be that’s currently in front of us. And currently it says states completed by January 1st, 27. And I would like to change it to January 1, 28. I do think it’s important the biennial one every 2 years make sense, but as we are almost close to end of 25 being of 26. So I believe it would make sense and it would be to be changed to 28. Thank you, Councilor. Just a second. Okay. Looking for a seconder. Seconded by counselor cutting. All right. Looking for speakers list or questions comments for the emotion or the amendment. And I’ll just read it back.

[2:30:47] It’s part B. That part B of the motion be amended to read January 1st, 2028 instead of January 1st, 2027. That’s with respect to the biennial update to put us back one year on the annual update. So looking to committee for comments or questions. Go ahead. Counselor McAllister. Thank you. And through you, just to staff, did they have any issues of staying with the 27 just want to hear from them. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We had proposed 2027 because that would have been our next regularly scheduled update, but we are acknowledging. Yes, it’s quite late in the year. We have no concerns with change to 2028. Thank you. Go ahead, counselor. Okay. Anybody else? I have some questions. Counselor McAllister. Do you mind breaking it up? Go ahead, counselor. Thank you presiding officer. Okay. Just following up on Council McAllister’s questions.

[2:31:45] So pausing this effect. I just wanted to know right now from what I understand is the park land dedication by law does this by annual review so we can make sure that the land values are update for the charges that we provide with pushing this back by one year. Is there a chance that potentially we would be detached from the value of the land currently? And is there the possibility that when we pick it back up? Our reserves may not be adequate to purchase land that would be park land. Thank you, Mr. presiding officer. I can certainly start Miss Dan. We wish to add something. It’s not possible to predict whether or not property values will actually increase or decrease over a pending future period necessarily.

[2:32:33] So there actually could be even downside risk in any period that values may go up. They may go down. They may go up by more than we expected. We don’t have a particular concern that this will impact our reserves in the long term and I can see Miss Dan as anything to add. Thank you. And through the chair, part of this process is an assessment, a third party assessment of market values to make sure that we are collecting at current market rates, because that’s what we need to use this fund for to be able to purchase park land at that rate. Go ahead, counselor. Thank you. Okay. I know we can’t, I guess, predict what the land values are at the moment. I do know that land values themselves are a little bit different from land that has structures or buildings on them. So that land is a little more sustained or consistent with its value.

[2:33:22] So I just want to make sure that we that we navigate this risk appropriately. If, if we have that extra year, and then we were to update it, is there a potential that the increases because we’re limited at 5% I believe for the cash in lieu increases. If I’m wrong, correct me if I’m wrong, but if we’re limited at that, and we see land goes up higher than that, we would limit ourselves at the 5% increase. If there’s a potential that we wouldn’t be unable to buy sufficient park land with the 2.2 hectares for every thousand people. Go ahead, Ms. Sherwin. Through the chair, the Parkland Reserve Fund has a reserve within it, which allows us to buffer over those two year readjustments to the rate.

[2:34:13] The goal is to be able to maintain that fair market value so that as we’re purchasing new land going forward, we’re able to afford in all parts of the city. So I’m confident that, you know, we’ve set up a system that’s able to buffer the ups and downs between the 2 years. Okay, thank you. And then I guess my final question then, really what I’m asking is I don’t want the Parkland dedication piece for the cash in lieu to come out of the taxpayer purse. So that’s really what I’m asking. So if we cut into our reserves, there is some risk there, but that doesn’t mean that we are getting the risk. People want to see us do development in a way that’s sustainable as well. So I’m just trying to find the balance there. So just the final question really is.

[2:34:58] If we are too low on reserves, which it seems that we’re not, that does mean we need to dip into property taxes to pay for Parkland or there are other sources of funding for that. I’m going to stand with you already through the chair. I don’t think we have someone from the finance department here to be able to speak to that. I believe that if we were ever in a situation that we had to use something other than the Parkland reserve fund for purchases. That would be something that would be a matter we have to bring forward a council.

[2:35:33] Okay. All right. That’s all my questions. I guess I’m going to need more information. So my vote here might not reflect my vote at council. I am going to search for, I guess, some more information on that. I just want to make sure that we don’t put ourselves at the risk of getting into the property tax sources of funding to pay for the Parkland dedication. So that’s it. Thank you. I’m presiding officer. Okay. I will pass the chair back to you, Councillor Trosto. Thank you. Go ahead, Councillor Trosto. Well, I’ll attempt to the chair to assist on this a little bit, although I see we have with us today that budget chair who might be more knowledgeable than myself.

[2:36:20] But should we, should we exhaust the preferred reserve account? It would go to council and it would be council could take it from general, from general other reserve accounts other than this particular reserve account. If council wanted to do that, is that right? And I guess I’ll ask, can I ask another council member of the question? If the council member wants to answer or if they have to agree to answer, if they don’t have the answer right now, they can come back. Okay, it’s totally up to them. I’m just going to look over at council proposal if she wants to take a stab at this one. Go ahead.

[2:36:56] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe Mr. Chair would also have information, but you would have seen it in the past, too, that notwithstanding council’s procedures that we can make changes, but Mr. Chair, I believe it was also indicated she wished to speak. Go ahead, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In addition to the ability for council to make a decision as to how any deficit or shortfall in the reserve fund would be funded. If we were to start seeing really dramatic changes in the property value landscape, there would be nothing to preclude us bringing a report at that time to council for your consideration with respect to these values. We don’t believe that the additional year introduces additional risk based on the way we’ve been seeing properties value in the city at this time.

[2:37:36] But certainly if something were to happen that we’re dramatically low on what we’re collecting versus what we’re able to purchase, there’s nothing to preclude us from also coming back to committee as well in advance of the biennial review. Thank you, go ahead. So in that case, I’m going to go ahead at this point of committee and support this motion. I’m satisfied that we’re not really running a substantial risk in any way that we would have to look to taxpayers given given the very, very strong position that the city has with respect to the balance in many of our reserve accounts. So I’m okay with this. And I am as well. Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Chair. That’s what I needed to hear. Okay, looking to members, visiting members, budget here. Okay, calling question. Oh, sorry, just a second.

[2:38:33] Calling the question on the amendment. So calling the question now, closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Thank you. Now, the main motion as amended. Just one last call comments questions. I see none. Okay, let’s call that. Motion carries five to zero. That’s it for deferred matters and additional business. We have some items on the confidential agenda. So looking for a motion to move in camera moved by Councilor McAllister, seconded by Councillor Cuddy.

[2:39:38] I can do this by hand, all those in favor. All those opposed. I’m going to do it online. Okay, we’re actually going to do this online. So just see your E scribe and vote there. Councillors, Cuddy and Trossow. Councillors, Cuddy and Trossow. So votes, yes. Posing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Recording in progress. All right, we are back from in camera. I’m going to look to my vice chair to report out. Thank you. Through the chair, reporting out the progress we made on both items, 6.1 and 6.2, for which we went into confidential sessions. Thank you, Councillor. That leaves us to adjournment looking for a motion to adjourn.

[2:43:18] Move by Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor McAllister. All those in favor by hand. All those opposed. That motion carries. We’re adjourned.