Open Council

17th Council Meeting

Open Council

17th Council Meeting

November 4, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:00 PM.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that Councillor C. Rahman discloses a pecuniary interest in item 4.1, clause 6.1 of the Confidential 16th Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee having to do with Property Acquisition, 580 Wellington Road, Wellington Gateway Project by indicating that her spouse has an employment relationship with St. Joseph’s Health Care London.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

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

     

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.1/16/ICSC)

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

       

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.2/16/ICSC)

4.3    Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations

       

A matter pertaining to personnel, labour relations and potential employee negotiations in regards to the Corporation’s management employee group, advice and recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation including communications necessary for that purpose. (6.3/16/ICSC)

4.4    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. (6.1/16/CPSC)

4.5    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. (6.2/16/CPSC)

4.6    Litigation/Potential Litigation / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice  

     

A matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. (6.1/13/SPPC)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

That Council convenes In Closed Session, from 1:17 PM to 1:33 PM.

At 1:16 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen enters the meeting.

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

5.1   16th Meeting held on October 14, 2025

2025-10-14 Council Minutes

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the Minutes of the 16th Meeting of the Municipal Council, held on October 14th, 2025, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by S. Hillier

Seconded by D. Ferreira

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

6.1 Proposed Changes to the W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigation Measures Program

  1. Budget Chair E. Peloza

6.2 Proposal to Limit Bedroom Count in Additional Residential Units

  1. Councillor S. Lehman

  2. S. Mathers, Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth

6.3 (ADDED) Update on Bill 17 and Green Development Guidelines (Framework)

  1. B. Samuels

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   16th Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee

2025-10-27 ICSC Report 16

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 16th Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by C. Rahman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.1) Biosolids Management Master Plan - Notice of Completion (Referred July 22, 2025) 

Motion made by C. Rahman

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the Biosolids Management Master Plan:

a)    the Notice of Completion BE FILED with the Municipal Clerk;

b)    the Biosolids Management Master Plan report BE PLACED on public record for a 30-day review period; and

c)    the recommended implementation plan presented in the Biosolids Management Master Plan BE APPROVED following the 30-day public review period and following responses to any comments received in accordance with the Master Planning process;

it being noted that if comments are received that require material changes to recommendations in the Biosolids Management Master Plan, the Plan will return to Council with revised recommendations;

it being further noted that the pace for advancing the projects recommended through this Master Plan will be further refined during design and may also require adjustment to meet the constraints of existing program budgets, and any Council decisions made through the upcoming 2028-2031 multi-year budget process;

it being pointed out that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee received communications from C. L. Ivanitz, Law Clerk, Beckett Personal Injury Lawyers and G. Sheil, PLC Member, with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.2) Single Source Procurement - Replacement of Flow Monitoring and Rain Gauge Equipment

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to flow and rainfall monitoring equipment purchase:

a)    supply of flow monitors and rain gauges BE AWARDED to Blue Siren Inc. at a total upset limit of $300,000.00 (excluding HST), in accordance with Sections 13.3 iii (a) and 13.3 iii (e) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for this purchase BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated October 27, 2025 as Appendix ‘A’;

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

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

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.3) Appointment of Consulting Engineer: RFP-2025-201 Gainsborough Road Rehabilitation Detailed Design and Construction Administration

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the appointment of a consulting engineer for the detailed design, tendering and construction administration of the Gainsborough Road Rehabilitation from Wonderland Road to Aldersbrook Road (RFP-2025-201):

a)    the proposal submitted by Dillon Consulting Limited BE ACCEPTED to provide consulting engineering services to complete the detailed design, tendering, and construction administration services at an upset amount of $306,884 (excluding HST), as per Section 15.2 (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for this assignment BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated October 27, 2025, as Appendix A;

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.4) 2024 Annual Reporting of Lease Financing Agreements

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the report regarding the 2024 Annual Reporting of Lease Financing Agreements BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.5) Pre-Authorized Tax Payment Plan By-Law and Collection of Property Taxes By-Law (Relates to Bill No.’s 384 and 385)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to property taxation for 2026:

a)    the proposed by-law, appended to the staff report dated October 27, 2025 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Council meeting to be held on November 4, 2025, to amend By-law A.-5505-497 being “a by-law to authorize the implementation of a pre-authorized payment plan” so that the calculation of pre-authorized payments is based on the previous year’s taxes increased by the average increase in total property tax rates in the residential class of the previous year; and

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated October 27, 2025 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Council meeting to be held on November 4, 2025, to amend By-law A-8426-294 entitled “Property Tax Collection by-law” so that the calculation of the interim tax levy will be set at a percentage of 42.63% of the previous year’s taxes.

Motion Passed

8.2   16th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2025-10-20 CPSC Report

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the 16th Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of items 4 (2.3), 6 (2.4), 7 (3.1) and 9 (5.2).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) 5th Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by D. Ferreira

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

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.2) London & Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership Community Plan 2025-2028

Motion made by D. Ferreira

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

8.2.5   (2.5) Approval of Contract Amendment Single Source SS-2025-195 Rental of Weigh Scales – W12A Landfill

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated 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

8.2.8   (5.1) Councillor S. Trosow and Councillor J. Pribil - Improving By-law Compliance Communications

Motion made by D. Ferreira

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

8.2.4   (2.3) Information Report on Executed Purchase of Service Agreement for London Cares Homeless Response Services

Motion made by D. Ferreira

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 (14 to 1)

8.2.6   (2.4) 2025 Parkland Dedication By-law CP-25 Update (Relates to Bill No. 389)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated 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 be completed by January 1, 2028.

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the motion be amended to read as follows:

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

a)    the revised attached by-law, 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 be completed by January 1, 2028.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 6, clause 2.4, reads as follows:

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

a)    the revised attached by-law, 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 be completed by January 1, 2028.

8.2.7   (3.1) Proposed Changes to the W12A Landfill Community Enhancement and Mitigative Measures Program

Motion made by D. Ferreira

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;

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.

Motion made by D. Ferreira

That the following part c) BE APPROVED

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

Motion Failed (6 to 9)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the motion BE AMENDED to add the following new part that reads as follows:

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to impose a cap of 1.5 million dollars on the Community Mitigative Measures Fund (Appendix “A” #6 “Community Mitigative Measures Fund”)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 7, clause 3.1, reads as follows:

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 Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to impose a cap of 1.5 million dollars on the Community Mitigative Measures Fund (Appendix “A” #6 “Community Mitigative Measures Fund”);

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.

8.2.9   (5.2) Councillor D. Ferreira - Street Parking in the Core Area

Motion made by D. Ferreira

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 (14 to 1)

8.3   16th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2025-10-21 - PEC Report

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 16th Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of items 3 (2.2), 6 (3.1), and 8 (4.1)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) Quarterly Heritage Report (Q3)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the staff report dated October 21, 2025, related to the Quarterly Heritage Report, Q3 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.3) Updating the Financial Incentive Program Guidelines for the SoHo Community Improvement Project Area (Relates to Bill No. 388)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to updating the financial incentive program guidelines for the SoHo Community Improvement Project Area, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated October 21, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 4, 2025, to AMEND by-law C.P.-1521-13; as amended, being a by-law to establish financial incentives for the SoHo Community Improvement Project Area, by deleting Schedule “1” and replacing it with the appended Schedule “1” a revised SoHo Community Improvement Plan Financial Incentive Program Guidelines.

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (2.4) 7th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 7th Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on October 16th, 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.7   (3.2) 4680 Wellington Road South - TZ-25097 (Relates to Bill No. 399)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 761030 Ontario Ltd. (c/o Navdeep Jim Grewal) relating to the property located at 4680 Wellington Road South, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated October 21, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 4, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016), by extending the Temporary Use (T-74) Zone for a period not exceeding three (3) years.

Motion Passed

8.3.9   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the October Deferred Matters List, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) Update on Bill 17 and Green Development Guidelines (Framework)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the staff report dated October 21, 2025, related to Update on Bill 17 and Green Development Guidelines (Framework) BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration to report back to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment on the following:

i)    a terms of reference for consultation on an incentive based approach to encourage green initiatives; 

ii)    a review on the possibility of providing a “green priority stream” which would prioritize and accelerate applications with green measures through the approval and permit phases;

iii)    confirmation from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing that the voluntary development guideline framework is in alignment with Bill 17; and,

iv)     incorporate changes to the reporting of development applications that would highlight voluntary and market driven initiatives;

it being noted that the verbal delegation from M. Wallace, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion be amended to read as follows:

That the staff report dated October 21, 2025, related to Update on Bill 17 and Green Development Guidelines (Framework) BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration to report back to a future meeting, (by Q2 2026), of the Planning and Environment on the following:

i)    a terms of reference for consultation on an incentive based approach to encourage green initiatives; 

ii)    a review on the possibility of providing a “green priority stream” which would prioritize and accelerate applications with green measures through the approval and permit phases;

iii)    confirmation from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing that the voluntary development guideline framework is in alignment with Bill 17; and,

iv)     incorporate changes to the reporting of development applications that would highlight voluntary and market driven initiatives;

it being noted that the verbal delegation from M. Wallace, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Franke

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 3, clause 2.2, reads as follows:

That the staff report dated October 21, 2025, related to Update on Bill 17 and Green Development Guidelines (Framework) BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration to report back to a future meeting, (by Q2 2026), of the Planning and Environment on the following:

i)    a terms of reference for consultation on an incentive based approach to encourage green initiatives; 

ii)    a review on the possibility of providing a “green priority stream” which would prioritize and accelerate applications with green measures through the approval and permit phases;

iii)    confirmation from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing that the voluntary development guideline framework is in alignment with Bill 17; and,

iv)     incorporate changes to the reporting of development applications that would highlight voluntary and market driven initiatives;

it being noted that the verbal delegation from M. Wallace, with respect to this matter, was received.

8.3.6   (3.1) 34 Adelaide Street South - Z-25100 (Relates to Bill No. 398)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Scott Wilson (c/o MHBC Planning) relating to the property located at 34 Adelaide Street South, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated October 21, 2025, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 4, 2025, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 (in conformity with the Official Plan for the City of London, 2016) to amend the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R2 (R2-2) Zone TO a Residential R2 Special Provision (R2-2(_)) Zone;

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

  •    Y. Elmahdy, MHBC Planning Urban Design; 

  •    C. Mendoza;

  •    B. Wilson;

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

  •   the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS), which encourages an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet current and future housing needs;

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

  •    the recommended amendment would allow for an existing residential use at an appropriate scale and intensity within the Built-Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area; 

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

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

8.3.8   (4.1) Deputy Mayor S. Lewis and Councillor C. Rahman - Proposal to Limit Bedroom Count in Additional Residential Units 

Motion made by P. Cuddy

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED bring forward a city initiated Zoning By-law amendment to the current Zoning By-law No. Z-1 to:

a)    establish a maximum of two (2) bedrooms for any Additional Residential Unit (ARU);

b)    provide that no more than three (3) bedrooms in total may be contained within any combination of Additional Residential Units located within or attached to the main dwelling;

c)    provide that no more than three (3) bedrooms in total may be contained within any detached ARUs located on a property, whether contained within a single detached ARU or distributed between two detached ARUs;

d)    include a provision that the gross floor area (GFA) of any ARU shall not exceed eighty percent (80 %) of the GFA of the primary dwelling unit, excluding common or shared utility areas; and, 

it being noted these provisions are intended to operate within the existing zoning framework that permits no more than four (4) total dwelling units on a residential property, including one (1) primary dwelling and up to three (3) Additional Residential Units, with a maximum of two (2) detached ARUs permitted, and to limit the combined total number of bedrooms within all Additional Residential Units on a property to six (6);

it being noted that the verbal delegations from M. Wallace, J. Gray and E. Granillo, with respect to this matter, were received.

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the motion BE AMENDED to add new parts that read as follows:

e) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a land use study immediately and report recommendations to the Planning and Environment Committee within one year of the By-law coming into force and effect;

f) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward at the November 4, 2025 Council meeting an Interim Control By-law that temporarily restricts new Additional Residential Units that exceed bedroom count or unit size limits in order to allow time for a study of these matters; and

g) the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to include the Interim Control By-law on the By-law section of the November 4, 2025 Council Agenda.

IT BEING NOTED that this matter is urgent due to the ongoing approval of high intensity Additional Residential Units that creates neighbourhood compatibility concerns.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

Motion Failed (5 to 10)

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the proposed Interim Control by-law BE AMENDED to increase the gross floor area (GFA) limit from eighty percent (80%) to ninety-five percent (95%) of the GFA of the primary dwelling unit.

Motion Failed (6 to 9)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the motion, as amended, BE FURTHER AMENDED as follows:

a) part (d) of the motion BE AMENDED to decrease the gross floor area (GFA) limit from eighty percent (80%) to seventy percent (70%) of the GFA of the primary dwelling unit.

b) the Interim Control By-law BE AMENDED to decrease the gross floor area (GFA) limit from eighty percent (80%) to seventy percent (70%) of the GFA of the primary dwelling unit.

Motion Failed (2 to 13)

Motion made by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Item 8, clause 4.1, reads as follows:

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED bring forward a city initiated Zoning By-law amendment to the current Zoning By-law No. Z-1 to:

a)    establish a maximum of two (2) bedrooms for any Additional Residential Unit (ARU);

b)    provide that no more than three (3) bedrooms in total may be contained within any combination of Additional Residential Units located within or attached to the main dwelling;

c)    provide that no more than three (3) bedrooms in total may be contained within any detached ARUs located on a property, whether contained within a single detached ARU or distributed between two detached ARUs;

d)    include a provision that the gross floor area (GFA) of any ARU shall not exceed eighty percent (80 %) of the GFA of the primary dwelling unit, excluding common or shared utility areas;

e) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a land use study immediately and report recommendations to the Planning and Environment Committee within one year of the By-law coming into force and effect;

f) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward at the November 4, 2025 Council meeting an Interim Control By-law that temporarily restricts new Additional Residential Units that exceed bedroom count or unit size limits in order to allow time for a study of these matters; and

g) the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to include the Interim Control By-law on the By-law section of the November 4, 2025 Council Agenda.

IT BEING NOTED that this matter is urgent due to the ongoing approval of high intensity Additional Residential Units that creates neighbourhood compatibility concerns.

it being noted these provisions are intended to operate within the existing zoning framework that permits no more than four (4) total dwelling units on a residential property, including one (1) primary dwelling and up to three (3) Additional Residential Units, with a maximum of two (2) detached ARUs permitted, and to limit the combined total number of bedrooms within all Additional Residential Units on a property to six (6);

it being further noted that the verbal delegations from M. Wallace, J. Gray and E. Granillo, with respect to this matter, were received.

8.4   13th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2025-10-28 SPPC Report 13

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 13th Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED with the exception of items 6 (3.4) and 7 (4.1).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) London Hydro Inc. Amended and Restated Shareholder Declaration (Relates to Bill No.’s 382 and 383)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports and the Deputy City Manager, Legal Services with the concurrence of the City Manager, the following actions be taken with respect to the London Hydro Inc. Amended and Restated Shareholder Declaration: 

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated October 28, 2025 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council Meeting to be held on November 4, 2025:

i)    TO RATIFY AND CONFIRM the Resolution of the Shareholder of London Hydro Inc. authorizing and approving a 2025 Shareholder Declaration for London Hydro Inc., attached to the by-law as Schedule “1”;

ii)    TO AUTHORIZE the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Resolution of the Shareholder; and

iii)    TO AUTHORIZE the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Shareholder Declaration attached to the Resolution of the Shareholder as Schedule “A”;

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated October 28, 2025 as Appendix “B”, To Approve a Recruitment Process for Director Appointments to London Hydro Inc. BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council Meeting to be held on November 4, 2025 to set out the process established for appointments to the Board of London Hydro Inc.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (3.1) 2026 Amendments to Consolidated Fees and Charges By-law (Relates to Bill No. 387)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, with the concurrence of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated October 28, 2025, as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 4, 2025, to repeal By-law A-60 and replacing it with a new 2026-2027 Consolidated Fees and Charges By-law that lists various fees and charges for services or activities provided by the City of London; 

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

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (3.2) Steve Pellarin, Executive Director - Small Business Centre, London

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received the Annual Update from S. Pellarin, Executive Director, Small Business Centre, London.

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (3.3) Christina Fox, Chief Executive Officer - TechAlliance

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received the Annual Update from C. Fox, Chief Executive Officer, TechAlliance.

Motion Passed

8.4.8   (4.2) Committee Appointment Preferences Submitted by Council Members

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following appointments BE MADE to the Standing Committees of the Municipal Council for the term December 1, 2025 to November 15, 2026:

a)      Planning and Environment Committee

Deputy Mayor S. Lewis

Councillor P. Cuddy

Councillor S. Stevenson

Councillor S. Hillier

b)    Community and Protective Services Committee

Councillor J. Pribil

Councillor S. Trosow

Councillor A. Hopkins

Councillor D. Ferreira

c)      Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee

Councillor H. McAlister

Councillor S. Stevenson

Councillor P. Van Meerbergen

Councillor S. Franke

it being noted that the following Council Members were appointed as Chair by Mayoral Decision 2025-003:

Councillor S. Lehman - Planning and Environment Committee

Councillor E. Peloza - Community and Protective Services Committee

Councillor C. Rahman - Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee.

Motion Passed

8.4.9   (4.3) Consideration of Appointment to the Covent Garden Market Board of Directors (Requires 1 Member)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That David Little BE APPOINTED to the Covent Garden Market Board of Directors for the term ending November 14, 2026.

Motion Passed

8.4.10   (4.4) Consideration of Appointment to the Committee of Adjustment (Requires 1 Member)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That Jeff Gard BE APPOINTED to the Committee of Adjustment for the term ending November 14, 2026.

Motion Passed

8.4.11   (4.5) Consideration of City Appointees to Western University’s Board of Governors

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the motion to appoint Lori Higgs and Marlene McGrath to the Western University’s Board of Governors BE REFERRED to the next meeting of Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to allow for more information to be gathered with respect to the candidates and the appointment process.

Motion Passed

8.4.12   (4.6) Consideration of Amendments to the Council Procedure By-law A-61 - Councillor C. Rahman, Deputy Mayor S. Lewis and Councillor D. Ferreira (Relates to Bill No. 386)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a by-law to the November 4, 2025, meeting of Municipal Council to amend Council Procedure By-law A-61 to update the standing committee mandates as follows:

a)    the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee mandate BE AMENDED to include “Sidewalks and Bike lanes – Planning, Design (retrofitting into established neighbourhoods) and Maintenance, Snow Control, Street Lighting (retrofitting into existing neighbourhoods), Traffic Control (changes to parking regulations, new Pedestrian Crossovers, automated enforcement, etc.), and Waste Management”; 

b)    the Community and Protective Services Committee mandate BE AMENDED to remove “Sidewalks and Bike lanes – Planning, Design (retrofitting into established neighbourhoods) and Maintenance, Snow Control, Street Lighting (retrofitting into existing neighbourhoods), Traffic Control (changes to parking regulations, new Pedestrian Crossovers, automated enforcement, etc.), and Waste Management”; and

c)    the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE AMENDED to include “Items related to Strong Mayor Decisions and Directions”.

Motion Passed

8.4.13   (4.7) Request for Change of Council Meeting Date - Councillor S. Franke

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, with respect to the Annual Calendar for Standing Committee and Council Meetings, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to amend the 2026 Standing Committee and Council Meeting Calendar to reschedule the meeting of Council currently set for Tuesday, October 13, 2026 at 1:00 PM to Wednesday, October 14, 2026, to accommodate the Council Added Agenda deadline for communications and petitions to Council; and

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to schedule Council Meetings that would otherwise fall on a Tuesday following a statutory holiday to Wednesdays on all future Annual Calendars for Standing Committee and Council Meetings on an ongoing basis.

Motion Passed

8.4.6   (3.4) Kapil Lakhotia, President and Chief Executive Officer - London Economic Development Corporation

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received the Annual Update from K. Lakhotia, President and Chief Executive Officer, London Economic Development Corporation.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

8.4.7   (4.1) 2025 Council Resourcing Review Task Force Final Report

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the 2025 Council Resourcing Review Task Force, and in accordance with the Final Report dated October 3, 2025, the following actions BE IMPLEMENTED with respect to Councillor resourcing effective November 15, 2026:

a) recognizing London’s growth and the public expectation of full-time hours for this role, the annual compensation for Councillors BE INDEXED to the 70th percentile 2020 median full-time employment income for Londoners, as reported in the 2021 Census, it being noted that this change will take effect at the commencement of the next term of Council;

b) the current annual adjustment formula in the Remuneration for Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members Policy BE MAINTAINED; 

c) the annual adjustment in Councillor compensation BE AUTOMATIC and administered by the Civic Administration; 

d) the Council base compensation and the annual adjustment formula BE UPDATED in 2027 to reflect data from the 2021 – 2026 census period, and that the new data be used to calculate Council compensation starting in 2028, such that 2028 base compensation will equal 70th percentile 2025 full-time individual employment income in the London CMA, as reported in 2026 census data;

e) the Mayor’s current compensation BE MAINTAINED, and the alignment between Council and Mayoral base compensation BE REVIEWED at the next Council Resourcing Review, scheduled to take place in four years; 

f) the current practice of not providing additional compensation or stipends to the Mayor and Councillors for sitting on agencies, boards, and commissions BE CONTINUED; 

g) a mechanism to compensate Standing Committee Chairs for their additional responsibilities BE IMPLEMENTED, with compensation to be set at 4% of the base annual Councillor salary, limited to one application per Councillor at any given time, and not applicable to individuals serving as Deputy Mayor or Budget Chair;

h) Council undertake the following actions with respect to additional compensation and related matters for the Deputy Mayor and Budget Chair positions, and that they BE CODIFIED in Council Policy: 

i) a mechanism to compensate the Deputy Mayor and the Budget Chair BE FORMALIZED in the Remuneration for Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members Policy, with additional compensation for both positions to be set at the amount of 8% of the base annual Councillor salary; and

ii) the roles and responsibilities, as well as the appointment process, for the Deputy Mayor and Budget Chair positions BE CLARIFIED within a new “Appointment of Deputy Mayor and Budget Chair Policy”;

i) the expectation that a Councillor’s role constitutes full-time service BE CLARIFIED AND REINFORCED through the development and inclusion of appropriate language to this effect in Council documents; 

j) language in the Council Procedure By-law regarding Councillor service on Standing Committees BE AMENDED to further promote balanced Councillor representation across Standing Committees;

k) an expectation BE ESTABLISHED that each Councillor serve on a minimum of three Agency, Board, or Commission positions at any given time, and that this expectation BE CODIFIED in the appropriate Council documents;

l) and m) of the 2025 Council Resourcing Review Task Force recommendations, relating to the Councillor Office support staff complement, the reduction to Council Member general expense accounts, and the increase to the contract assistant expense allotment, BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Governance Working Group for consideration with respect to the related to Deferred Items on its agenda;  

n) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take the necessary steps to establish a severance package for Members of Council who are unsuccessful in re-election, calculated at one (1) week of pay per year of service, to a maximum of four (4) weeks;

o) a ‘continuous learning’ model of Councillor training BE ENDORSED and supported with resources, and that both new and returning Council Members BE REQUIRED to attend post-election training and onboarding sessions; and

p) the relationship between Council resourcing and the composition of Council BE CONSIDERED in the next Ward Boundary Review process;

it being noted that the verbal delegation from M. Horak, Chair, 2025 Council Resourcing Review Task Force was received.

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the Final Report of the 2025 Council Resourcing Review Task Force dated October 3, 2025 BE REFERRED to Civic Administration to report back to the December 9, 2025 meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee with; 

i)    indexing scenarios of 60th and 65th percentile of the 2020 median full-time employment income for Londoners as reported in the 2021 Census and 

ii)    a variety of additional compensation scenarios for serving on a minimum of standing committee and agencies, boards and commissions (ABC’s) (i.e. a percentage of salary based on a minimum number of appointments, certain amounts for certain ABC’s based on workload etc.).

Motion Failed (6 to 9)

At 3:08 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor C. Rahman in the Chair. 

At 3:10 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the referral BE AMENDED to add a new part iii) to read as follows:

iii )   criteria and enforcement with respect to the public expectation of full time service

Motion Failed (2 to 13)

At 3:52 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor C. Rahman in the Chair. 

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

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following parts BE APPROVED:

e) the Mayor’s current compensation BE MAINTAINED, and the alignment between Council and Mayoral base compensation BE REVIEWED at the next Council Resourcing Review, scheduled to take place in four years;

i) the expectation that a Councillor’s role constitutes full-time service BE CLARIFIED AND REINFORCED through the development and inclusion of appropriate language to this effect in Council documents;

j) language in the Council Procedure By-law regarding Councillor service on Standing Committees BE AMENDED to further promote balanced Councillor representation across Standing Committees;

k) an expectation BE ESTABLISHED that each Councillor serve on a minimum of three Agency, Board, or Commission positions at any given time, and that this expectation BE CODIFIED in the appropriate Council documents;

o) a ‘continuous learning’ model of Councillor training BE ENDORSED and supported with resources, and that both new and returning Council Members BE REQUIRED to attend post-election training and onboarding sessions; and

p) the relationship between Council resourcing and the composition of Council BE CONSIDERED in the next Ward Boundary Review process;

it being noted that the verbal delegation from M. Horak, Chair, 2025 Council Resourcing Review Task Force was received.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That part a) of the motion BE APPROVED:

a) recognizing London’s growth and the public expectation of full-time hours for this role, the annual compensation for Councillors BE INDEXED to the 70th percentile 2020 median full-time employment income for Londoners, as reported in the 2021 Census, it being noted that this change will take effect at the commencement of the next term of Council;

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That part b) of the motion BE APPROVED:

b) the current annual adjustment formula in the Remuneration for Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members Policy BE MAINTAINED;

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That part c) of the motion BE APPROVED:

c) the annual adjustment in Councillor compensation BE AUTOMATIC and administered by the Civic Administration;

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That part d) of the motion BE APPROVED:

d) the Council base compensation and the annual adjustment formula BE UPDATED in 2027 to reflect data from the 2021 – 2026 census period, and that the new data be used to calculate Council compensation starting in 2028, such that 2028 base compensation will equal 70th percentile 2025 full-time individual employment income in the London CMA, as reported in 2026 census data;

Motion Passed (10 to 5)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That part f) of the motion BE APPROVED:

f) the current practice of not providing additional compensation or stipends to the Mayor and Councillors for sitting on agencies, boards, and commissions BE CONTINUED;

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That part g) of the motion BE APPROVED:

g) a mechanism to compensate Standing Committee Chairs for their additional responsibilities BE IMPLEMENTED, with compensation to be set at 4% of the base annual Councillor salary, limited to one application per Councillor at any given time, and not applicable to individuals serving as Deputy Mayor or Budget Chair;

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That part h) of the motion BE APPROVED:

h) Council undertake the following actions with respect to additional compensation and related matters for the Deputy Mayor and Budget Chair positions, and that they BE CODIFIED in Council Policy:

i) a mechanism to compensate the Deputy Mayor and the Budget Chair BE FORMALIZED in the Remuneration for Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members Policy, with additional compensation for both positions to be set at the amount of 8% of the base annual Councillor salary; and

ii) the roles and responsibilities, as well as the appointment process, for the Deputy Mayor and Budget Chair positions BE CLARIFIED within a new “Appointment of Deputy Mayor and Budget Chair Policy”;

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That part n) of the motion BE APPROVED:

n) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take the necessary steps to establish a severance package for Members of Council who are unsuccessful in re-election, calculated at one (1) week of pay per year of service, to a maximum of four (4) weeks;

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That part l) and m) of the motion BE APPROVED:

l) and m) of the 2025 Council Resourcing Review Task Force recommendations, relating to the Councillor Office support staff complement, the reduction to Council Member general expense accounts, and the increase to the contract assistant expense allotment, BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Governance Working Group for consideration with respect to the related to Deferred Items on its agenda;

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Item 7, clause 4.1, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the 2025 Council Resourcing Review Task Force, and in accordance with the Final Report dated October 3, 2025, the following actions BE IMPLEMENTED with respect to Councillor resourcing effective November 15, 2026:

a) recognizing London’s growth and the public expectation of full-time hours for this role, the annual compensation for Councillors BE INDEXED to the 70th percentile 2020 median full-time employment income for Londoners, as reported in the 2021 Census, it being noted that this change will take effect at the commencement of the next term of Council;

b) the current annual adjustment formula in the Remuneration for Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members Policy BE MAINTAINED;

c) the annual adjustment in Councillor compensation BE AUTOMATIC and administered by the Civic Administration;

d) the Council base compensation and the annual adjustment formula BE UPDATED in 2027 to reflect data from the 2021 – 2026 census period, and that the new data be used to calculate Council compensation starting in 2028, such that 2028 base compensation will equal 70th percentile 2025 full-time individual employment income in the London CMA, as reported in 2026 census data;

e) the Mayor’s current compensation BE MAINTAINED, and the alignment between Council and Mayoral base compensation BE REVIEWED at the next Council Resourcing Review, scheduled to take place in four years;

f) the current practice of not providing additional compensation or stipends to the Mayor and Councillors for sitting on agencies, boards, and commissions BE CONTINUED;

h) Council undertake the following actions with respect to additional compensation and related matters for the Deputy Mayor and Budget Chair positions, and that they BE CODIFIED in Council Policy:

i) a mechanism to compensate the Deputy Mayor and the Budget Chair BE FORMALIZED in the Remuneration for Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members Policy, with additional compensation for both positions to be set at the amount of 8% of the base annual Councillor salary; and

ii) the roles and responsibilities, as well as the appointment process, for the Deputy Mayor and Budget Chair positions BE CLARIFIED within a new “Appointment of Deputy Mayor and Budget Chair Policy”;

i) the expectation that a Councillor’s role constitutes full-time service BE CLARIFIED AND REINFORCED through the development and inclusion of appropriate language to this effect in Council documents;

j) language in the Council Procedure By-law regarding Councillor service on Standing Committees BE AMENDED to further promote balanced Councillor representation across Standing Committees;

k) an expectation BE ESTABLISHED that each Councillor serve on a minimum of three Agency, Board, or Commission positions at any given time, and that this expectation BE CODIFIED in the appropriate Council documents;

l) and m) of the 2025 Council Resourcing Review Task Force recommendations, relating to the Councillor Office support staff complement, the reduction to Council Member general expense accounts, and the increase to the contract assistant expense allotment, BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Governance Working Group for consideration with respect to the related to Deferred Items on its agenda;

o) a ‘continuous learning’ model of Councillor training BE ENDORSED and supported with resources, and that both new and returning Council Members BE REQUIRED to attend post-election training and onboarding sessions; and

p) the relationship between Council resourcing and the composition of Council BE CONSIDERED in the next Ward Boundary Review process;

it being noted that the verbal delegation from M. Horak, Chair, 2025 Council Resourcing Review Task Force was received.

*Clerks Note: the motions to approve part g), and n) failed.

9.   Added Reports

At 4:15 PM, Councillor P. Van Meerbergen leaves the meeting.

Motion made by S. Franke

That clause 1 of the 17th Report of the Council, In Closed Session BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

That clause 1 of the 17th Report of the Council, In Closed Session, read as follows:

1.    That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 580 Wellington Road, further described as, Part of Block 9 on Plan 33M-501, designated as Part 5 on 33R21981, City of London: County of Middlesex, being Part of PIN 08471-0596, containing an area of approximately 812 m²/ 8,736.42 square feet (fee simple), and 976 m²/ 10,510.53 square feet (temporary easement), as shown on the Location Map attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the offer submitted by St. Joseph’s Health Care, London (the “Vendor”), to sell the subject property to the City, for the sum of $460,000.00, and grant a Temporary Easement for the sum of $120,000.00 for a term of two (2) years with an option to extend the Term up to two (2) times subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement attached as Appendix “C”, BE ACCEPTED; and

b)    the financing for this acquisition BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report attached hereto as Appendix “A”.

Motion made by S. Franke

That clause 2 of the 17th Report of the Council, In Closed Session BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

That clause 2 of the 17th Report of the Council, In Closed Session, read as follows:

   

  1.      That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the Director, Construction and Infrastructure Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the property located at 303 Wellington Road  further described as Part of Lot 25, Concessions 2, designated as Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Expropriation Plan ER1639856, in the City of London, County of Middlesex, being all of PIN 08363-0039, as shown on the location map and Expropriation Plan attached as Appendix “B”, for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Settlement Agreement as to compensation and possession from 16 Wellington Holdings Inc. to settle the outstanding expropriation compensation to the property owner, for the total sum of $1,249,000.00, subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the settlement agreement attached as Appendix “C”, BE ACCEPTED; and

   

b)    the financing for this acquisition BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report attached hereto as Appendix “A”.

That progress was made with respect to items 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 as noted on the public agenda, (6.3/16/ICSC) (6.1/16/CPSC) (6.2/16/CPSC) (6.1/13/SPPC).

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

Councillor S. Stevenson enquires with respect to progress on the 60 micro-modular shelter site. The City Manager provides a response to the Council with respect to this matter.

12.   Emergent Motions

None.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Introduction and First Reading of Revised Bill No. 389 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Second Reading of Revised Bill No. 389 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Revised Bill No. 389 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Introduction and First Reading of Added Bill No. 400 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Second Reading of Added Bill No. 400 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Lewis

That pursuant to section 13.6 of the Council Procedure by-law, the Council decision with respect to the Second Reading of Added Bill No. 400 BE RECONSIDERED to provide for Councillor C. Rahman to correct her vote.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Second Reading of Added Bill No. 400 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Added Bill No. 400 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Introduction and First Reading of Added Bill No. 401 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Second Reading of Added Bill No. 401 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Added Bill No. 401 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Introduction and First Reading of Added Bill No. 402 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Second Reading of Added Bill No. 402 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Added Bill No. 402 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Introduction and First Reading of Revised Bill No. 398 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Second Reading of Revised Bill No. 398 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Revised Bill No. 398 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 381 to 399 BE APPROVED with the exception of Bill No.’s 389 and 398

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 381 to 399 BE APPROVED with the exception of Bill No.’s 389 and 398

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 381 to 399 BE APPROVED with the exception of Bill No.’s 389 and 398

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 4:33 PM.

Appendix: New Bills

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (3 hours, 52 minutes)

[22:25] Okay, thank you, please be seated. Welcome to the 17th meeting of council this year. It is November 4th, 2025, I’m gonna start with the land acknowledgement. We acknowledge we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabak, Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwak, and Adwondron peoples. We honor respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area, the two-row Wampum Belt Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Silver Covenant Chain, the Beaver Hunting Grounds Treaty of the Haudenosaunee and Nanfand Treaty of 1701, the McKee Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, and the Huron track Treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabak, and the Dish With One Spoon, Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabak and Haudenosaunee.

[23:14] Three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chippewaas, the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and Muncie Delaware Nation, who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs. The City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings on request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact Council Agenda at London.ca or 51661-2489, extension 2425. With that, I will introduce our national anthem singer today.

[23:50] November 8th marks London’s fourth UNESCO City of Music Anniversary. Over this week, we celebrate through a variety of activities. This next performer, New to London, will be participating in the City of Music Conference as a guest speaker. Lawrence Williams is the director of music at St. Paul’s Cathedral, London, Ontario, where he is responsible for directing three choirs, running the music program and playing the organ. He is passionate about bringing great music to as many people as possible and is delighted to contribute to the cultural scene of London, Ontario. Please rise and join me in welcoming Lawrence who now perform the national anthem for us.

[24:32] ♪ O Canada ♪ ♪ Home and native land ♪ ♪ Tred to London ♪ (singing in foreign language) Awesome, we’re on two disclosures of your interest. Look for any disclosures the colleagues might have.

[26:28] Seeing none, we’re on two recognitions. Deputy Mayor Lewis has, I think, two recognitions to make. Thank you, Your Worship. First, I want to take the opportunity today to express my sincere thanks and gratitude to municipal staff. On the weekend, starting on Friday night, a transformer blowout in front of East Lions Community Center caused a fire in the pool area, damaged some equipment. I want to thank London Fire Department for their very professional and quick response, making sure that the fire was contained and that the building itself was not further damaged.

[27:12] But I also want to thank our facility staff and our city of London hydro crews who spent all day Saturday on site, assessing the damage, working to get power restored so that programs and services could resume as soon as possible. I know they are continuing to work on that today in terms of getting the pool back in operation as well, and hopefully we’ll have an update to provide to the public later this afternoon or tomorrow morning as to when that can happen. But on top of that, on Sunday morning, of course, we all receive the news of a tragic bus accident on the 401, where a driver in medical distress lost control of the vehicle, which was full of some grade nine students, almost four dozen of them, who were on their way to an overnight camp in Point Pealy.

[28:03] Our staff were part of that response in terms of ensuring that despite the challenges, we were able to open East Lions Community Center as a reception and reunification site so that anxious parents who were on their way from Kitchener to pick up their sons and daughters were able to do so at East Lions rather than at the site of an accident. We were able to provide the students some drinks and some snacks and make them comfortable while they waited for those parents to get there. So throughout the weekend, and I wanna, in particular, recognize and thank our city manager, Sandra Dater-Spier, our deputy city manager, Ms. Smith, our director of emergency operations, Mr. Latissure and our director of recreation services, Mr. McGonagall, for their work in keeping me informed as to what was going on in my ward, letting me know what options and contingency plans were available and how they were responding.

[28:58] But I know beyond them, there are a whole number of frontline staff who were responsible for ensuring that the responses to both the fire and the bus accident were handled quickly and so that everybody was able to be safe and so that we were able to protect our city facilities and get people who were in trauma from a serious accident into a safe environment where they could wait for their loved ones. So kudos to all the staff involved from our city manager on down. You did incredible work and I just wanna take this opportunity to thank you for that.

[29:36] I’m gonna add to that piece two things. One is I think, as we just said, we should thank our staff. It was not necessary to, not necessarily standard practice, I should say, to open a reunification center. They could have been put back on a bus that sent back to Kishner after being in a bus accident. That would bring probably the most traumatic thing to do. So for our staff to suggest that the city of London could host that despite this being in the control of the OPP’s jurisdiction, I think was as a testament to our city interacts with other emergency operations agencies and the chance to speak to the premier about the incident that night.

[30:15] And not only was he impressed with the work that we did, but wanted me to pass along his thanks to all of those involved in that. He recognizes that it requires a lot of training, a lot of professionalism to have that really smooth interoperability of those different agencies to come together to ultimately focus on the needs of the individuals involved in the accident. Well, at the same time securing the scene and ensuring an investigation could take place. So on behalf of the premier too, he wanted me to pass along his thanks as well for all the work that was done.

[30:46] So I just wanted to add that to the deputy mayor’s recognition. Thank you, Your Worship. And for my second recognition colleagues, I just wanna share that today being the last council meeting before Remembrance Day, last week I had the privilege as the mayor was away in Ottawa at FCM, helping the big city mayors and our FCM team with meetings with our cabinet and prime minister. So it was my privilege and pleasure to receive the first poppy of the annual poppy campaign in chambers last week.

[31:24] That poppy was presented by Sam Newman. Sam is a retired RCAF captain with over 32 years of service to our country. Yesterday I had the privilege of joining Sam at Prince Charles Public School, where we had an assembly with grade seven and eight students where Sam got to share his stories with those students and they got to ask questions of Sam about his experiences in the forces. As we enter an era where none of our World War I veterans are left, very, very few of our World War II veterans and even our Korean veterans are passing.

[32:02] It is so important that we take the time to pause and remember and that we listen to the stories that can still be told by those veterans who have served our country. The poppy boxes are out around the city. This year some of our new boxes even include a tap feature so that you can simply tap your debit or credit card for $5 and take a poppy to support our veterans. It’s also an important year for London in terms of this marks the 120th anniversary of the armories and tonight I want to extend to all of council an invitation after our meeting to join the first desires in front of the armories for a special military parade and flag raising ceremony.

[32:45] It’ll be a brief ceremony. Folks are gathering at 630. We will be beyond by seven, but the organizer has asked me to please extend the invitation to all of council to attend if they wish to do so. Finally, in recognizing Remembrance Day, it’s not just the service or the ceremony at the San Ataf that matters. This weekend, I know that there will be ceremonies in both Byron and Lambeth as the legions there, host their Remembrance Services ahead of Remembrance Day. I know Councilor Hopkins will be attending and of course members of the public are more than welcome to attend those.

[33:21] In Argyle, we will be hosting a Remembrance ceremony on Saturday morning at Vimy Ridge Park. This is a special ceremony as we involve the students from our elementary schools, both Catholic and public schools in the wards in the Argyle Planning District in ward one, two, and three and four, have been making wreaths this week and they will participate in laying the wreaths escorted by young people serving in the cadet programs and taking part in that service themselves. So it’s very important as we start to lose some of our veterans from the World Wars and from the Korean War that we remember that Canadians have served across the globe in peacekeeping missions in places like Cyprus and Rwanda, the Golan Heights, in conflicts like Bosnia, Herzegovina, in conflicts, even now we are providing military support and strategy to the Ukraine.

[34:19] Throughout the world, Canadians put themselves on the line to defend freedom and democracy across this planet. Sam told a story yesterday to the grade seven and eight students about his deployment in the Middle East when he was deployed, Israel and Egypt were at war and he did not have to fire a shot as a Canadian peacekeeper in that deployment because the Canadians set up camp in the desert essentially in their peacekeeping role used themselves as human shields between the two different combatant sides.

[35:02] That is the kind of commitment that our armed forces personnel make when they sign up and put on the uniform. It’s important that so we don’t repeat the mistakes of history, we remember it. So I just wanna close by saying, lest we forget. All right, thank you. Item three is, are any other recognitions? Seeing none, a review of confidence matters to be considered in public, there are none. Council on closed session, we have six items to move into closed session before I look for a motion to move into closed session, moved by Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Cuddy, any discussion on the move to closed session?

[35:42] Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. I vote yes, my e-scribe isn’t loading. Councillor van Mirbergen, second call, Councillor van Mirbergen, noting Councillor van Mirbergen. Absent closing the vote, vote carries 14 to zero.

[36:21] We’ll move to committee room five. Okay, thank you, please be seated.

[57:13] All right, we’ve completed our closed session. We’re on to item five, confirmation and signing of the minutes from previous meetings. We have the 16th meeting, which was October 14th, 2025. I’ll look for a mover of those minutes. Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Hopkins, any discussion on the minutes? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Frank, Councillor Stevenson.

[58:09] Stevenson votes yes. No, it is, thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, item six, communications and petitions. There are two on the regular, one on the added. All of these relate to items within the current agenda, so I have a motion that would refer all those, moved by Councillor Hillier, seconded by Councillor Ferra, any discussion on referring those? Okay, seeing none, that’ll open for voting. Councillor Stevenson votes yes.

[58:45] Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, number seven, motions to which notice was given. There are none, reports, we’ll start with the report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee. I’ll have Councillor Raman present that report. Thank you and through you. I look to present the 16th report at the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee. There were six items at that meeting. I have not been asked at this time to pull any, but I’ll look to my colleagues to see if there’s any requests. All right, anything on ICSC that you’d like dealt with separately?

[59:26] Is there any, so you can go ahead and make a motion? Thank you. I’ll look to put items one through six on the floor. Okay, those are on the floor. Any discussion on those? Seeing none, then we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you, that concludes my report. Great job. Onto the Community and Protective Services Committee.

[1:00:00] Item 8.2, I’ll turn it over to Councillor Ferra to present the report for the committee. Thank you, Chair. Please report the 16th report for the Community and Protective Services Committee. I do have some pull requests. I have item four pulled by Councillor Stevenson. That’s 2.3, information report on executed purchase of service agreement for London Care’s homeless response services. Pull for item six, it’s pulled by me. That’s 2.4 2025 Parkland Dedication By-law CP25 update as it relates to bill number 385. Pull request for item seven. That’s for Councillor Palosa.

[1:00:34] That’s 3.1 proposed changes to the W12A Landfill Community Enhancement Admitative Measures Program. And pull request by Councillor Frank, item nine. That’s 5.2, that’s my motion to the committee for street parking in the core area. Okay, so would anybody like anything else dealt with separately beyond the list that Councillor Ferra mentioned? Please, no. Which is almost all of it. Yeah. Okay, then did you want to make a motion with what’s left?

[1:01:08] Well, I will move one, two, three, five, and eight. Okay, one, two, three, five, and eight are on the floor. Any comment on those? Okay, seeing none, then we’ll open that for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, go ahead.

[1:01:46] Thank you. I will put item four, that’s 2.3 information report on executed purchase service agreement for lending care’s homeless response services. Okay, that’s on the floor. I’ll look for any discussion. Seeing none, then we’ll open that for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Go ahead, Chair. Thank you.

[1:02:18] We’ll put item six, that’s 2.4, the 2025 Park Line dedication by-law CP-25 update as a release of bill number 389. I’m putting that on the floor, and then I’ll have an amendment to put forwards, just let me know when I can do that. Sure, that’s on the floor. I know that staff had an administrative amendment. You’re willing to put that on the floor. I am. Okay, so what we’ll do is you put the regular one on the floor, you’re willing to put the amendment on the floor, so the amendment is on the floor now, which is, I believe, both to the report and the by-law. Yep, and Councilor Plos is willing to second that amendment, so discussion on the amendment.

[1:02:56] Okay, seeing none, we’ll open the amendment for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, now I’ll ask Councilor Fair, if you could put it in the as amended clause on the floor, so move it as amended. I will, I’ll move that as amended. And I need a seconder for an as amended motion. Councilor Plos is willing to second, so debate now on the as amended motion. Seeing none, we’ll open, go ahead, Councilor.

[1:03:33] I’ll just say, this is just a correction that we had to make, just for some of the items there, we did send out an email to Council. Specifically, the section numbers that were cited in draft by-law, 2.2.1, was used instead of 2.13, so it’s just a housekeeping amendment. Okay, so on the as amended, any other speakers? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[1:04:15] All right, go ahead, Councilor. Thank you, Mayor. Next item is item seven, 3.1, proposed changes to the W12A landfill community enhancement and a mitigative measures program. I’ll put that on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor, referred a communication with Councilor Palosa to this item as well. Councilor Palosa, I don’t know if you’d like to speak to it. Go ahead. Thank you. I’m gonna ask that part C of that be pulled out and voted on first, that proposed change to impose a cap of $1 million on this fund being removed. I haven’t, I haven’t ever asked before.

[1:04:50] If colleagues could defeat my motion, that was done at committee as you saw in the pre-circulated items to be fiscally prudent and respect what the community already has of not losing money would actually to deflate, would like to deflate to, oh my goodness, defeat committees at recommendation that was generously made on my behalf of no cap where I can put one on the floor of a $1.5 million camp. Okay, so Councilor’s asking for us to do C separate and first so that if it’s defeated, that alternate motion could land on the floor.

[1:05:24] So I could certainly have C dealt with first, but I’ll look to see if there’s any other discussion before we get to voting on that. I don’t see any. Okay, so we’ll do C first, which you’ve asked us if we could defeat so that you can put an alternate on the floor. So C is gonna open for voting. We’ll do that now. Opposed in the vote, motion fails six to nine.

[1:06:09] So this will be considered an amendment now to the main motion which you can make because you’ve defeated C so it’s not contrary. Thank you, so making an amendment then as pre-circulated that the clerks have in the Eastbribe, that civic administration be directed to impose a cap of $1.5 million on the community and the mitigation measures fund. If there’s a seconder, then I’ll speak to it. Okay, the Councillor Hill here is willing to second. If you’d like to speak to it, you can do that now. Thank you. This for anyone who joined the PPM and who joined the public liaison committee meetings. This fund currently has over a million dollars, but they have a plan to spend it and it’s kind of out for a tender and they’re working their way through it with Ms. Chambers, who’s new in that position.

[1:06:46] So excited for it. The money does have portion of it, but does have an end use that they are working towards. So a cap of $1.5 million would allow civic administration and a council to have a cap on the account, but them not lose any funds in the interim. So a middle ground the way forward. So looking for your support on this amended motion. Okay, so that amendment’s on the floor. Any other speakers to the amendment? Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yes, thank you, Worship. I’m rising to speak in favor of the amendment. I actually voted the wrong way on the motion to defeat.

[1:07:20] One of those double negative moments. There’s some brain freeze there, but I’m happy to support this. And I think that both a fiscal prudency of having a cap makes sense, but also having a cap that respects the fact that there’s more than a million in the fund currently. So that the residents are not losing anything that has been contributed so far. Also makes a lot of sense and it’s quite fair. So happy to support councilor on this motion. Any other speakers to the amendment? Councilor Trozak. Sorry to say that I have to say the exact same thing, but I don’t think it changes anything.

[1:07:55] So I won’t ask for a reconsideration. But yeah, thank you, Councilor. It’s early in the meeting, we’re just warming up. So that’s all right, everybody. Anybody else on the amendment which makes the cap 1.5 million? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[1:08:29] And now I need an as amended motion. Councilor Frayer, I’m willing to do that. Councilor Plow’s are willing to second. Okay, so now this is everything with the new amendment in it. Any discussion on the whole package with the 1.5 item now? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[1:09:10] Go ahead, Councilor. Thank you, Mayor. Item 9, 5.2, Councilor D for Air Street Parking in the core area, I’ll put that on the floor. That’s on the floor. I’ll look for any discussion. Seeing none, then we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

[1:09:46] Go ahead. That concludes the 16th report of the Community Protective Services Committee. Great, thank you very much. Moving on to the 18th, sorry, 16th report of the Planning and Environment Committee. Turn it over to Councillor Layman to present that report. Thank you, Mayor. Please put the 16th report of the Planning and Environment Committee on the floor. I’ve had requests to pull item three, six, and eight. Okay, would anybody like anything else dealt with separately besides three, six, and eight?

[1:10:22] No, then you can go ahead and make a motion, Councillor. So I’d like to move one, two, four, five, seven, and nine. Okay, those items run the floor by the chair. Any discussion on those items? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Stevenson votes yes. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[1:11:00] Right, Councillor. Thank you, I would like to put item three. This is regarding an update on Bill 17 and Green Development Guidelines on the floor. This was requested to be pulled by Councillor Frank. Okay, that’s on the floor by the chair. I look for speakers, let’s Councillor Frank, go ahead. Thank you, yes. I just wanted to add a report back deadline that I circulated of Q2 2026 for this work. Okay, so the amendment is to add a timeline to Q2 2026 on the report back.

[1:11:37] Is there a seconder for that amendment? Deputy Mayor Lewis is willing to second. Okay, so we’re on the amendment now. Would you like to speak to the amendment or good? Okay, anybody want to speak to the amendment? No, okay, so this is an amendment to add a timeline. No speakers, we’re going to open that for voting. Councillor Stevenson votes yes. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. And now as amended, willing to move it, Councillor Layman.

[1:12:11] The as amended motion, yes, seconded by Councillor Frank. Okay, so as amended, moved and seconded, any discussion on the as amended motion? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Stevenson votes yes. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Councillor Layman.

[1:12:43] Thank you, moving on to number six. This is regarding 34 Adelaide Street South and Councillor for our request to be pulled. Okay, so that’s on the chair by the, or on the floor by the chair, any discussion? Go ahead, Councillor Troso. Just to be very brief, thank you through the chair. I just want to reiterate the position that I took at the planning committee. I’m not going to go through that in detail here again, but I do feel that I cannot in good conscience support this given all of the other issues that are going on.

[1:13:25] And I think in the long run, this really speaks to the need for us to harmonize our bylaws across the divisions and the departments that all take on different pieces of the property. I feel, well, I’m not going to repeat what I said at the planning committee. So I’ll be voting no on this, thank you. Okay, thank you, any other speakers? Seeing none, we’ll open this for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to two.

[1:14:12] Go ahead, Councillor Layman. Thank you, moving on to number eight. This is regarding proposals to limit the bedroom count and additional residential units. Whereas I am, we’ll be putting forth an amendment on this. I’d like to request so the chair be handed over to Peck committee member, Councillor Cuddy. Okay, Councillor Cuddy, you’re going to present this report. Yes, thank you, Chair. I’ll present this report. Okay, so Councillor Cuddy puts the original committee recommendation on the floor. Start a speakers list, Councillor Layman. He said you had something you wanted to amend, so I’ll go to you.

[1:14:47] Thank you, Mayor, at committee we were dealing with a unique situation that arose of our change that we made to as of right for additional residential units. And at Peck it was, I think, determined that we want to see a change in the by-law to reflect more of what I think the original by-law had intended. However, there was a particular instance which showed a deficiency actually in that regard. So the motion, the original motion for you is to have staff look at that and come back with a proposed change in that by-law.

[1:15:27] That process will take some time and it requires certain things to be followed through, for example, like a PPM, et cetera. What my amendment does is to just put a stop right now of future applications that could be coming forward until as to time as such that we get the appropriate by-law changes made. So I’ll just read the two main parts to this. This temporarily restricts that new additionally residential units that exceed bedroom count or until size limits in order to allow time for a study of these matters and also to undertake on land use study immediately and report recommendations to planning environment committee within one year of the by-law coming into force and effect.

[1:16:19] Your worship, I just wanted to ask a question to— One second, have you, did you wanna put your amendment on the front end? Yeah, sorry. Let me just make sure I can— Well, I apologize, I should have got the help. Yes, I’ll put it on the first side. Anybody willing to, you know, okay, Councillor Hillier’s willing to second. Now you can go ahead and— Sorry, sorry. You can ask questions. All right, got a little— Go ahead with your question. I want to, if I could, through you, ask a question of staff. While we realize that adjustments need to be made, the original intent, I think we’re still behind that and we want to, we know there’s a number of these applications that are in process and we do not want any undue delay to those.

[1:17:01] So through you to staff, I would like to ask, how soon can we get this report back to PAC, Mr. Maynard’s? Through you, Your Worship, the intent is to bring it back into 2026. - Go ahead. Thank you, so I appreciate that, Mr. Maynard’s. So for the, those that have applications before us, while this says a year, it’s, we intend to, staff intends to have this back quickly within the first quarter.

[1:17:34] So there’ll be a few months delay until we get things in order. So I appreciate your support, and thank you. Okay, this is now on the amendment Councillor for, sorry, Councillor Ferra, how does, and the first, then I’ll get you, Councillor Frank. Thanks, Mayor. I read this one with interest, for sure. I just got a couple of questions. The first one would be for the study itself, would this include the near campus neighborhood areas as well? Go ahead.

[1:18:06] Through you, Your Worship, there was a previously, a by-law change that was undertaken for the near campus neighborhoods. So we wouldn’t, this wouldn’t be considering any change to near campus neighborhoods. It would only be looking at the areas outside the near campus neighborhoods. Go ahead, thank you. Sorry, thank you for that. So no consideration in the near campus neighborhoods. I would assume that the study would have to, ‘cause it is citywide, would have to include the near campus neighborhood area to make an appropriate assessment. I don’t, all right, if it’s not including the near campus neighborhoods, okay.

[1:18:41] I guess the next question would be what, so I do see that the interim control by-law that we’re speaking of has a language here that it wouldn’t exceed the bedroom count or unit size limits, or it wouldn’t, specifically says, for the neighborhood compatibility concerns, those high intensity additional residential units is really what’s gonna be halted. So are we gonna be using the amendment that we saw at PEC to define that? Mr. Manners.

[1:19:14] After your worship, so attached to the motion letter that was brought forward by Councillor Layman, is the complete by-law and you’re absolutely correct. The basis of that by-law are the motion components that were brought forward at Planning Environment Committee. Go ahead, Councillor Ferra. Thank you. I’m not sure where to land on this one ‘cause for the near campus neighborhoods, and thank you for that answer, for the near campus neighborhoods, I believe that if we’re looking at the ADUs and the capacity there and for the rest of the city, and we’re already doing that study, maybe it’d be prudent or wise to include the near campus neighborhood portion in that as well.

[1:19:56] I don’t know if the study that the Councillor is proposing would be able to incorporate that. I just wanted to know what would be the feasibility of including that in Mr. Manners? Through you, worship, we absolutely could. However, there are already established restrictions with that area that require that there’s a maximum of five bedrooms within the main unit and one bedroom in any additional unit, so it’s already more restrictive than is what’s being proposed. So if you’re looking at reducing those restrictions, that this would be an opportunity to do that, or if you’re looking at changing the restrictions, you could include that, but that’s not something that was brought forward at PAC for consideration at this time.

[1:20:39] Go ahead, Councillor Ferriero. Thank you. I guess my intent would be to increase those restrictions. I do believe that with our increase on housing and other ends of the city, we may not necessarily need the numbers of units as it is right now. I don’t wanna necessarily mess with it if those restrictions wouldn’t change. I guess if we do see the study coming back with restrictions on citywide ADUs, maybe we would be able to include the near campus neighborhoods. I do have a motion amendment ready, but I’m not gonna put it on the floor, but it is ready, but I just wanna hear what council is thinking, and if you do think that we should include that for the near campus neighborhoods, it’s ready to go, but I do wanna hear what council has to say, ‘cause I know some of you have a better in depth understanding of the history for the near campus neighborhoods, but I just wanted to see if we could just capture everything because I do see this as an opportunity right now to look at the entire city.

[1:21:36] So maybe the amendment could be citywide, including near campus neighborhoods, but I’ll leave it there. Councilor, I’ll just say if you are waiting to hear what your colleagues think, it’s council, so you only get to speak once. So if someone’s going to move your amendment, they’ll have to do it for you, or you’d still have the right to bring it through committee at another time with a different analysis. So I just wanted to give you a heads up that when you seed the floor, it won’t be coming back to you. I understand, Mayor, thank you. All right, then I would move the motion. It would be to just include the near campus neighborhoods as part of the study as well.

[1:22:10] And my intent would not be to increase the number of bedrooms or ADUs in the near campus neighborhoods. My intent would be to look at it to see if that is still appropriate, the numbers that we have at this time, and if there is any potential for decrease with the new housing, that would be what I’m interested in. So if you have that. Okay, I have a point of order from Councillor Lehman. Go ahead. Well, I totally understand what the Councillor’s coming from. I would suggest that this is not related to the amendment that’s on the floor, and it could be brought through to another time to pack.

[1:22:55] Okay, give me a second. First off, I’m just gonna read the wording of the amendment so people know what it says, because I know the Councillor described it, but I’ll read that, and then I’ll make a ruling on the point of order. The amendment is to change the new E to add some bracketed areas, so it’ll read like this. E, civic administration be directed to undertake a land use study immediately bracket, including near campus neighborhoods, while maintaining the current near campus neighborhood policy during that study on bracket, and report back the rest of the clause remains the same.

[1:23:33] So that’s, the amendment is to add that bracketed piece. I don’t even have a secondary yet, but a point of order’s been called on whether or not it even conforms, so give me a second on that. Okay, so my ruling on the point of order is that given staff are doing the work, and they could do this, and it’s not making a final decision on it, but including in the study, I will rule that the amendment is in order, based on the advice I’ve received from the clerks, so I appreciate the point of order, but I’m gonna allow the amendment to stand.

[1:24:26] I still need a seconder for it, though. So I’m gonna challenge the chair. Okay, go ahead. With all due respect to your worship, this is a by-law very specific to the implementation of ARUs. This is not a study of other built forms, staff have already indicated that this does not supersede the near neighborhood campus, and the near neighborhood campus’s restrictive policies, including on bedrooms, not just on built form types, but the bedroom restriction, in addition, is governed by a separate by-law, so it is not related, and I think the chair’s ruling is incorrect to this time.

[1:25:02] Okay, so I’m gonna challenge the same by-law. Okay, so what we’ll do is we’ll move to a vote about whether the ruling of the chair should be upheld, so my ruling based on the clerk’s advice is that the amendment can stand, that’s being challenged, so if you agree the amendment can stand, you vote yes, if you don’t think the amendment can stand, you disagree with my ruling, you vote no, we proceed directly to a vote, and we’ll do that now with that debate.

[1:25:49] Who’s in the vote? The ruling of the chair is not upheld five to 10. Okay, so sorry, but your amendment doesn’t stand by the will of council, so it’s out of order, so you can’t make it, but you still have speaking time left, so I’ll let you conclude that. Let me just get how much time you have left. You’ve used three minutes, so you have two left. Thank you. The interim control by-law is specifically for the study, or is it specifically for the interim control, so we don’t have units beyond the intensity of what we’re looking for?

[1:26:29] Go ahead Mr. Mathers. Through you worship, so it’s both of those things. In order to have an interim control by-law that would provide this interim restrictions, you are required by the legislation to also bring forward a land study for council’s consideration, and that would likely then become a by-law amendment following that study coming forward. Councilor Ferra. Thank you. Well, I would say that we have the same issues in the near-campus neighborhoods that we do in the rest of the city, and I don’t see why we wouldn’t be able to include my amendment to that.

[1:27:03] While we’re there, it’s cheaper, while we’re there to do this extra work, rather than starting a new study. So I’m a little disappointed on the vote of this council for that part, but I guess I can’t take it further than that, so I would have appreciated that, ‘cause we should look into that. I got a lot of people in my ward in our near-campus neighborhoods. I am one who lives in a near-campus neighborhood, and I know exactly what the issues that I’ve heard at Peck that I heard from other people speaking about. It happens with us too. So, you know, citywide, the way I read this, it’s pretty general.

[1:27:35] It doesn’t say non-near-campus neighborhoods. It doesn’t say citywide, so as far as I’m concerned, it could control that. It could capture that. Thanks, Councillor. I’ll go to the next person on the speaker’s list, which is Councillor Frank. Thank you, and I have a question and then an amendment for the amendment. So through the chair to staff, I’m just wondering, are interim control bylaws appealable? Go ahead, Mr. Mayor. Through you, where should be, yes, they are appealable. Go ahead, Councillor Frank. Thank you, actually, then that makes more questions.

[1:28:09] In that regard, that I’m just wondering, given that this interim control bylaw will only be in effect from today until, sounds like, early next year, and then we would do the ZBA process. I suppose what I’m mostly wondering is, is there any, like, issue from staff that staff could see where we get this appeal, then we also get the ZBA process appealed. Mr. Mayor, through your worship, that is a very much a possibility. I’d have legal speech and specifics of what the likelihood of that happening, if one is in place and the other one is now superseded, but it’s likely that we’d be repealing that interim control bylaw when we bring forward the new zoning bylaw.

[1:28:55] Go ahead, Councillor Frank. Thank you, I appreciate that information. I did circulate an amendment to increase the ground floor area from 80 to 95%, and I’d be happy to speak to it if I have a seconder. Okay, so this is an amendment to the amendment of changing the percentage to 95. Go ahead, oh, so it has a seconder in Deputy Mayor Lewis. Would you like to speak to it now? Yes, thank you. So in general, I understand why there is interest in moving forward with both this interim control bylaw and the actual motion that was passed at PEC.

[1:29:34] That being said, I think that this council has done a really good job of trying to remove red tape and become more permissive and allow for density and infill to go where appropriate, and one of the pieces of feedback that I heard from some members of the industry was that this is a bit of a walk back on that. That being said, at least with 95% GFA with the primary dwelling unit, there are builders who would be able to actually fit in more infill and more density. Having the ground floor area, it sounds like, is not ideal because we already have a restriction that buildings can only be 40% generally of a parcel of land.

[1:30:13] So there’s already a restriction now, and then now we’re adding an additional restriction. So it’ll be interesting to see how folks start calculating these numbers. That being said, I’m hopeful that we can have 95% for the GFA because that would allow for folks a potential that a project is not viable at 80%, but could get viable at 95. So I’m just hoping to allow for this so that we allow for flexibility and maximum infill opportunity while still respecting these changes to the number of bedrooms. Okay, and I have a speakers list growing. So if you were on the speakers list on the amendment, just realize if I don’t go to you, it’s because I made a new speakers list for the amendment to the amendment.

[1:30:54] So if you wanna be on that speakers list, you gotta pop your hand again. But I will go back to the original speakers list after we deal with the amendment to the amendment. So I am not missing you. I’m just, you gotta get on this list ‘cause it’s a whole new motion. So right now I have Lewis next and then Tro Sao. But I just wanna clarify so Council knows what we’re doing in the public too. This is an amendment to the by-law. Council may not put an interim control by-law on the floor. So this will change the number in the by-law. We can do that at Council ‘cause it is one number in the by-law.

[1:31:25] So the by-law that you have before you will have, if this passes, one number changed in it, which we can do tonight without referring it back ‘cause it’s a small change that has been vetted. If this passes, when we get back to the main motion, we still need to amend the main motion ‘cause there’s language in the main motion, which we’re not on now ‘cause we’re on an amendment to add a by-law that we should clean up to align with what the by-law now says ‘cause the other number is actually in the main motion. So I’ll be looking to, if this passes, when we get all the way back to the main motion, someone who hasn’t spoken to the main motion to rise and actually add that amendment in, if this passes so that the language and the motion aligns with the language and the by-law, which we can’t do now ‘cause we’re on the interim control by-law as the amendment, okay?

[1:32:08] Sounds a little confusing, but I’ll walk you through it to make sure we get all the steps done. But for now, we’re on the amendment to the amendment, which is just the numerical change of the number to 95%. I have Deputy Mayor Lewis next. Thank you, Your Worship. So sticking as tight as I can to the amendment to the amendment, I will support this and the interim control by-law. I know Councillor Ramen had raised the potential at committee as well. We weren’t sure at the time, whether or not we could still implement one, but staff and Councillor Layman have found out that we can, so that’s great. Happy to support the interim control by-law.

[1:32:41] As one of the signatories to the motion on the ARU piece and the 80% GFA in the original motion, I am willing to go to 95% because of two reasons. One, it still captures the intent that an ARU is meant to be secondary to the main unit. It’s still expected to be smaller. It’s not, and regardless of the 40% lot coverage, then we have to account for the fact that whether that’s being used to still create an entirely second single-family dwelling, essentially, and by imposing a GFA limit, it still prevents that.

[1:33:15] It still does mandate that an ARU must be smaller than the main unit. That is really key to me, and so the reason I’m willing to support the 95% is I have listened to some feedback, including seeing some sample applications in the last week since PEC, where we do have some applications that are at like 85%, 88%, 92%. I don’t want to stop those applications dead in their tracks because they’re still respecting the intent. They’re still smaller than the main unit, but they wouldn’t meet that 80%.

[1:33:51] And rather than create a whole, as Councillor Frank said, we’ve done a good job of clearing up some red tape, instead of creating red tape of sending a bunch of ARU applications to committee of adjustment for minor variance is to go above the 80%. I’d rather set it at the 95, allow the applications that are in the pipeline to go through. Staff will bring forward an updated bylaw in the new year. We will look at it then. We can again debate whether that GFA number is right or wrong when that bylaw comes forward. And so I’m comfortable with the 95% as the interim control number for the time being.

[1:34:26] It gives some flexibility to the applications that are already in the pipeline to be finished, but it still puts that barrier in the way of what we saw with a couple applications where they were trying to go beyond that. But I will still say it’s important when we are tackling this, that we are tackling it in my opinion in small bites. In this particular case, it’s very specific to the ARUs. It’s not built forms about triplexes or fourplexes. It’s not about other policies like near campus neighborhood. It’s about the ARUs. And for me, this is where we can put a control in, and particularly given that the near campus neighborhood is already more restrictive than this would be, I’m comfortable supporting this interim control bylaw as proposed with the amendment from Councillor Frank.

[1:35:10] Okay, so I want everybody to keep it tight to the amendment, up to the amendment, which is the percentage moving from 80 to 95. Next on that, I have Councillor Troso. And through the chair, I’ll be speaking against the amendment to the amendment, which goes up to 95%. At what point are these no longer accessory units? And I think it’s fair to say that at 95%, not really an accessory unit anymore. We’re talking about a fourplex.

[1:35:45] Talking about a fourplex. The reason we got into this mess in the first place is because we’re being too permissive. We want applications to go through. We don’t want red tape. Well, one person’s red tape is another person’s protection. And I think having this at a reasonable level, where it is now, is a reasonable protection. You get a lot of extra benefits. If you could bring your application within the scope of an ARU. And I think to say an ARU can be 95%, I think it’s a bit much.

[1:36:22] And I think that it’s more, it’s more like, that’s virtually identical to the main house. So you could put up four if the lot’s big enough. And I just can’t support that. So I’ll be voting no on the amendment to the amendment. I think we’re doing quite a bit here. But I think this is the kind of going backwards that we don’t need at this point. And we should see how this plays out. So please vote no on the amendment to the amendment because 95% is more like something that’s very close to the main unit.

[1:36:58] And that really in my mind is a four plex. So let’s call it a four plex. Not an ARU. Thank you. Anyone else on the percentage change? Councillor Ferreira. Thank you. I was, like I said, I’ve been following this question quite closely. I can’t support the 95% GFA as well. And just like what Councillor Trosto was saying at what point is there a difference? Like why not we just make it 100% GFA? Like a thousand square foot single detached family residence. The ADU would be able to be 950 square feet. 50 square feet.

[1:37:30] It’s not that big. 2,000 would be 1,900 square feet. It’s not that much of a difference. So why not we just go to 100? I think we should go lower. I don’t, I think the 80 was better. I think it should be maybe around there a little bit lower. But I just don’t see why 95% is a big difference from the 100%. So just like Councillor Trosto was said, I’m not gonna be, I agree with him. And I wouldn’t be able to support that because like I said, why not just go to 100 then? Okay.

[1:38:02] Any other speakers to the moving to 95? You have Councillor Ramen, go ahead. Thank you and through you. So I will not be supporting the amendment on the GFA to 95%. My reason for doing so is that when this letter was being worked on part of the GFA conversation, at the 80%, I think for me while I was looking comparatively, I felt that 80% was the maximum that I could go. And at that point I was being permissive.

[1:38:39] I felt around the form and the size and what it could look like. I wanna make it clear that there are many cities that have a 40% GFA for their ARUs. So I don’t think we are being shockingly different here. I think that we are being reasonable and that this is a test of reasonableness in terms of where we’re going. So I’ll ask my colleagues to support the initial letter, and the original letter with the 80%.

[1:39:14] The good thing is that the addition of the other portions of the amendment allow for staff to come back and let us know in the form of a study if our numbers were compatible or not with industry. So we have information that can come back to us. I hope that through an environmental scan and the information that comes back we’ll be able to get a better instruction on where we should go based on what we’ve learned, I would say in the last little while from our own work in the city on ARUs, but also what’s going on across the province and across the country.

[1:39:52] Thank you. Any other speakers on the percentage change? Okay, seeing none, this is just on Councillor Frank’s amendment, which only changes the number from 80 to 95. So we’ll open that for voting. Opposing the vote, motion fails, six to nine.

[1:40:30] Okay, so we’re now back to just the amendment as Councillor Layman proposed it. So on the speakers list then I have, ‘cause some people have spoken to this, I have Trostow and Hopkins next.

[1:41:22] So Councillor Trostow go ahead. This is on Councillor Layman’s amendment, which is the addition of the bylaw. Or on the main motion? Not the main motion. This is Councillor Layman moved the introduction of an interim control bylaw, so that’s what we’re on here. I just wanna thank Councillor Layman for bringing that forward. I think it’s something that’s absolutely necessary. I’m still very worried that there are other back doors, there are other loopholes. I’m not gonna go into them in detail ‘cause they’re not on the floor, but if you apply for a severance, that’s often the first step in a step transaction that’s not being disclosed at the time.

[1:42:02] That may be something we have to look at. We may also have to go back and look at the four plexes, whatever you wanna call them, on connectors. That’s not on the floor, so I won’t address that now. I am very, very, I thought it was very thoughtful for the Councillor to put this on the table. And I think interim control bylaws, one point of clarification I’d like to get on the table. If an interim control bylaw can be appealed, is that in the nature of it going to the tribunal under their rules or would that have to be brought as an application in Superior Court to attack the bylaw?

[1:42:43] ‘Cause I think it’s an important difference in terms of the standard. Mr. Mathers. Through your worship, so that would go down to your land tribe, being also a L.T. process. Councillor Trossa. Well, in any event, I think it is, I don’t think it’s that risky. I think issuing an interim control bylaw when you’re making a change like this, I think the test would be, and just in favor of this motion, is there a reasonable likelihood that applications, many applications, would come through during the interim period?

[1:43:20] I think they would. I think we can all foresee that that would be a problem. So I think we need this interim control bylaw, and I will be urging everybody to vote, to vote yes. Thank you. Okay, I have Councillor Hopkins next. Thank you, Your Worship, and just as a follow up to Councillor Trossa, I too wanna thank Councillor Lehman for bringing this interim control bylaw forward. I am very supportive of it. I am also very supportive of the immediate land use study to be taken, and with that being said, I do have an amendment to the amendment.

[1:43:57] If I could put that on the floor and then make a comment, or would you like me to comment on it first? I’d like you to put your amendment to the amendment on the floor, and then I’ll look for a seconder. So just describe what your amendment is, and read it out, would be great. Thank you. So it’s a new part, and that the land use study be directed to include a discussion of the various forms of gentle density, like four plexes, triplexes, and duplexes, and the role of additional ARUs within the broader planning framework for neighbourhood development and intensification.

[1:44:37] And with that, I am looking for a seconder. Okay, I look for a seconder. I see Councillor Trossa willing to second that. So with it moved and seconded, we’ll get that on the screen so that everybody can read it, and you can debate it now, Councillor Hough. So your worship before we get into debate, I’m gonna call a point of order on this. Okay, go ahead with the point of order. So again, my point of order is we’re dealing with an interim control bylaw around ARUs, not around land use, different zoning categories, which, you know, R2, R3, R4 zones, control built form types, like triplexes, four plexes, stacked towns, all of those things.

[1:45:17] The bylaw that we, the interim control bylaw that we are debating right now is specific to ARUs, not built forms. And to expand the land use study, which is only required for the fact of an interim control bylaw, is an inappropriate use of procedure. If council wishes to have a study like that undertaken, a proper motion through PEC to direct the built forms in zones, because it’s not just an R1 zone, it’s R2, R3 zones, et cetera, should come through and have a proper debate at committee. It’s not related to an ARU interim control bylaw.

[1:45:55] All right, so point of order, give me a second to deal with that. And sorry, your worship, if I can just conclude, if one looks at the ARU built forms that are published on the city’s website, none of those built forms include triplexes, fourplexes, et cetera. The built form designs are very clearly published on our websites. They’re additions, they’re basement units, or standalone garden suites. Okay, so based on, and as the chair, I’m allowed to take the feedback of council through the course of the debate.

[1:47:16] Based on the ruling that was made by a majority of council on my previous decision, my interpretation of council’s will on this is that it be very focused on the interim control bylaw and other matters that can come through PEC for studies and information and that will go that route. So I’m going to uphold the point of order and say that the amendment to the amendment is out of order, just like Councillor Ferra, you can take it through committee to have this, these matters looked into in a different process. Council’s ruling and will before was to keep this very focused on the introduction of the interim control bylaw parameters.

[1:47:49] So I’m gonna say, unfortunately, Councillor Hopkins, I’m gonna rule your amendment out of order, but it does not preclude you from bringing such a study through planning committee at the next available opportunity. Okay, we’ll do, thank you. Okay, so there is no amendment to the amendment on the floor, Councillor Hopkins, just because you rose and did the amendment, I just wanna make sure you don’t wanna speak to the interim control bylaw before I move on to the next speakers ‘cause. I’ll take the opportunity to speak to the main amendment to the amendment.

[1:48:27] And again, I will be supporting this. I do think that we have many challenges in our city trying to understand the consequences to some of the decisions that we have made. I do think we can do a better job when it comes to gentle intensification and looking at other opportunities. I think this conversation should continue and I will be making sure I do that, thank you. Okay, so we’re on Councillor Layman’s amendment, any other speakers, you’ve already spoken Councillor Ferra.

[1:49:08] Okay, so this is, okay, so I don’t see any other speakers, this is on Councillor Layman’s pieces, which you can see before you, which is the introduction of an E and F and a G, which essentially introduces an interim control bylaw and the addition of it into our business tonight. So we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote motion carries 14 to one.

[1:50:02] So I guess we need an as amended mover. Councillor Layman, do you wanna still move the as amended version of this? Yes. Oh, no, I’m sorry, Councillor Cutty, you can, whatever way you guys wanna do it. Okay, well, he can keep standing. I’ll move that. So you’ll move the as amended motion, maybe Councillor Layman, you can second the as amended motion. Okay, so the as amended motion is seconded now. Contrary to my comments before, we didn’t actually change the percentage, so we don’t need to make any other changes to this ‘cause the interim control bylaw does align currently with the as amended motion before us.

[1:50:40] So I’ll look for speakers to the as amended motion now, which includes the inclusion of a bylaw, which we’ll vote on later tonight. Councillor Ferrera on the as amended motion. Thank you, Mayor. Like I said, I am aware of this. I do have some of these popping up around me, so I know how the neighborhood could feel or long-term residents could feel about some of these, I guess, expansions and the ADUs and the size therein and the issues that have been very well articulated in the council’s amendment to the motion from committee. I did hear that there is some concern about the 80% GFA.

[1:51:15] I still have that concern, so I guess I wanna ask, and I think this was said at tech, but I can’t remember specifically, where did that 80% of the GFA figure come from? How was that backed? Well, I can tell you it came from a motion that Councillors moved at the committee. So it came from Councillors who moved the motion. I’m not sure that’s a question for staff. I mean, Mr. Mayor, as you can try to answer it, but it wasn’t your motion. So unless a mover of the original motion wants to comment on 80%, which they’re not necessarily obligated to do, that’s where it came from.

[1:51:51] It was members of the committee who moved to motion and put the 80% number in. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor, is this in response to the question? Okay, so I ask you to keep it tight to a response to the Councillor as one of the original movers of the motion. Yes, so in response to the council’s question, as one of the original movers, part of the rationale or a significant chunk of the rationale behind the 80% is in how you accommodate basement units, where a basement unit is typically going to have a common area, laundry room, furnace room, that kind of thing, which would subtract from the gross floor area of the unit itself, because it would not be for the exclusive use of the tenant.

[1:52:34] And that was based just on consultation with both staff and the public or the sector in terms of, in general, how much of a percentage of common floor area would be included in a basement unit for the purposes of utility provision and that sort of thing. So the 80% is arising from the ability to include an air you in a floor plate of an existing building, excluding the common features of utility, laundry services, that sort of thing. So I hope that’s helpful to the council in knowing where the 80% number came from. Councillor Ferra.

[1:53:08] Thank you. So the reason I’m asking, I appreciate the answer from the Deputy Mayor, is because I have had some residents from the area that this motion came from, have told me that the 80% is a little bit high. I do see that there may be some appetite for maybe a lesser floor area. I think 65, 70% would be a little bit more appropriate. So I’m gonna put an amendment down on the floor, 70% GFA. Okay, so based on the fact that we’ve allowed this before, if something fails, we can try something different along the same lines.

[1:54:04] The council would like to put a change from, so I’m gonna allow it, but what I’m gonna ask for you, just for expediency before I ask for a seconder, is the change to 70%, we’re gonna have language for both the wording and the motion, and the wording in the interim control by-law on the off chance that it passes, not the off chance, but should it pass, we don’t have to have another motion later.

[1:54:57] So as long as you’re okay with that, I’ll look for a seconder. Okay, I’ll look for a seconder for 70%. Councillor Troz, I was willing to second. We’ll start a debate on the move of the number in both the part D of the motion and the interim control by-law from 80% to 70%. Go ahead and speak now that you have a move on a seconder. Thank you, Mayor, I’ll be very quick, very brief. I appreciate the response and the answer of how the 80% came from the deputy mayor. I do see that there is a little bit of arbitrariness in that, I do see that it is informed by experience, it is informed by just kind of looking at the floor plate and trying to integrate that and make sense.

[1:55:35] But because of that, and also because I do hear that there, it’s still a little bit too big, comparatively speaking, when you look at the main dwelling unit, I’m thinking 70% might be just a little bit more appropriate and people might be able to digest that a little bit more. So that’s the reason that I’m bringing that forward. Other speakers, let’s go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, worship. So I’m gonna ask colleagues to please defeat this and respectfully, and I do mean this respectfully, this is why meetings go along when we start pulling numbers out of our pocket on the floor because we don’t like the number that’s on the floor.

[1:56:16] And I say that with all due respect, but this number is based on some resident feedback, which is very wild across the city and has no relation to the experience of actually being able to build a building. It’s a perception not what actually would fit in a floor plate. And so I really encourage colleagues, let staff go do the work, let them do the study, let them come back to us. If we want to then at that point, look at a different number, we should do that, but we should not change the number on the floor today without letting staff do some more work on this.

[1:56:53] And already in this discussion, we’ve tried to see other things get thrown into the mix, but this amendment is not the only control that reflects what can be built on a property. You have setback requirements, you have total lock coverage requirements, you have built form requirements that change from zone to zone. So our one is single family homes, you have to get into an R2-3, I think is the before you can get to a triplex or fourplex. I’ll let Mr. Mathers tell me if I’m wrong on, it might be a different number, but the fact is you have to go to an R2 zone to get into multi-residential.

[1:57:31] I think it’s an R4 before you can get into four-story, six-story walkups. There are a whole number of other controls that are in place around the size of building can be on a lot, zoning, setbacks, built form restrictions. It is not just a gross floor area percentage. And so to start changing the gross floor area percentage today without thinking about all of those other factors, which I will say respectfully, Councillor Ramen and I did consider, I was willing to go higher, she wasn’t, that’s okay, we disagreed on that.

[1:58:05] But it was with discussions with staff, with discussions with the people who actually build things, do we really want to get into a situation where we are preventing the prefabricated modular ARUs from COPS build all built right here in London from being implemented in London because we picked an arbitrary number. I don’t think we want to do that. So I respectfully ask colleagues not to try and create a salad of different items that we want to put in here. If we want to bring other motions for consideration on built forms and things like that, go through the committee process, defeat any changes in numbers.

[1:58:39] Let’s go with what’s on the floor today and then have the engagement through the PPM when the draft by-law comes back from staff, let Mr. Wallace is in the gallery, let his sector engage, let residents engage. Let’s keep in mind that we have near-campus neighborhoods that have more restrictive policies already that are not being overruled by this. Even in this motion, we have bedroom counts, which limit intensification on the site. So the GFA is not the only control on an ARU, please. Stick with what we’ve got here today.

[1:59:12] Let the process work. And if there are other things you want to have looked at, bring them through committee where we can have a full some discussion. Any other speakers to the amendment, go ahead, Councillor Troso. Through the chair, a question for staff. What is the largest, if you know the answer, when you go to COPS, Bill Dole, or some of these other vendors that have prefab units, what’s the largest size on those, if you know, generally? I’m not expecting Mr. Mathers to know this, but maybe he shops at COPS, Bill Dole often, so I’ll see if he wants to answer.

[1:59:50] Through the chair, I don’t have a definitive answer, but I believe their largest unit is a two-bedroom at the current time, but that’s my knowledge as of today. Go ahead, Councillor. Well, I would like to make the suggestion then through the chair that it’s pretty difficult. If you’ve got a standard single occupancy dwelling, it’s hard for me to imagine getting up to that 70% going to a place like COPS, Bill Dole. I like the amendment, and I think it’s looking forward, and it’s very consistent with the whole reason why we’re here today, and I’m disappointed that some of the amendments didn’t pass.

[2:00:38] I think we’re making some more work for ourselves because there will be multiple motions coming to the PEC now. I’m also very worried that by excluding the near-campus neighborhood from the study, we really cannot use city-wide figures, ‘cause that includes the near-campus neighborhood, and we would then have to take the extra step of subtracting out from any city-wide data that we have the data for the near-campus neighborhood. But okay, that’s what the council supported. So I’m gonna support the amendment. I think 70% is fine, and the thing that really worries me that pushes me on this is the fact that all of these rules can be taken to the Committee of Adjustments, and they can pretty much do what they want, because Committee of Adjustments decisions are not appealable back to the City Council.

[2:01:32] So if we wanna have any type of semblance of control over this, I think we have to touch all the bases, and I think I appreciate Councilor Rever bringing that forward, and I will be supporting it, thank you. Any other speakers to the percentage change that’s on the floor? Okay, then I’m gonna open this for voting. This is a move from 80 to 70 in both the motion and the intern ritual by-law. We’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion fails two to 13.

[2:02:26] Okay, back to the original as amended motion, which only Councilor Ferrer has spoken to. Any other speakers? Okay, I’m gonna open this for voting, just for clarity. This is just the original Committee recommendation with the changes Councilor Layman made altogether. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

[2:03:30] Okay, and that concludes the PEC report, I think. Yep. That does, and thank you, Councilor Cady, for standing in for me. Yep, that moment where you guys were deciding if you wanted to stand, you have the very strategic of your Councilor Layman to pass that over to Councilor Cady. The next and final Committee report we have is SPPC. This is the 13th report of SPPC item 8.4 on our agenda today. I’ll turn it over to Deputy Mayor Lewis to present that report. I have been asked to deal with item six and seven separately.

[2:04:21] I’ll also advise colleagues that for item seven, and I’ll speak to this when I put it on the floor, the clerk has worked to block the votes together so that they reflect what we did at committee without having to have 17 separate votes. So hopefully that will suffice, and we can look at those when we get to item seven. I’ve not been asked to pull anything else with respect to the SPPC report. So item six is the receipt of the presentation from the LEDC.

[2:04:53] Item seven is the Council Resourcing Review Task Force, looking to see if there’s anything else colleagues wish dealt with separately. Anything else separate, Councilor Trossal? At the one item, Committee of Adjustments, item 10. I voted no on that at the committee. That stand is a reflection, or do I need to pull that and vote no on that separately? Or can I just let that go, since I stated my position at the committee? You’re not obligated to change your vote from the, you’re not obligated to pull it separately if you want to.

[2:05:28] It’s in the committee record. It’s in the committee report. In which case, I’ll just leave it. Okay. Thank you. Okay, sounds like just two items pulled then. So I’ll let you craft a motion, Deputy Mayor. So I am prepared to move items one through five and eight through 13. Okay, one through five and eight through 13 are on the floor. Any debate on those items? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[2:06:24] And I will now put item six. This is the receipt of the presentation from the London Economic Development Corporation on the floor. It was a request from Councillor Stevenson to pull that item. Okay, the item of just receiving that there was a presentation on the floor. I’ll look for any speakers. Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

[2:07:01] Go ahead. Okay, colleagues, bear with me here as I hopefully walk you through item seven, which is the Council Resourcing Review Task Force final report. With sincere thanks to our clerks team, what is in E-Scribe in items two through nine are votes two through nine reflect groupings of items that were voted on in the same number. So a 12 to three vote, for example.

[2:07:37] And items that also had different voting groups in them. So we had a couple of votes that were nine to six, but it wasn’t the same people who were in the nine and the six. So those have been pulled out as separate votes. And then we did have a couple that were supported unanimously. They are also dealt with in separate votes. So votes two through nine in E-Scribe are what I intend to put on the floor individually. And it might be that there may still be some members of Council who wish to pull some of those clauses apart, but I’m happy to work through these vote by vote.

[2:08:19] Let colleagues know what is in them. And then if there’s anything that colleagues still wish to be pulled separately, the clerks can assist with that. If that is amenable to proceeding on this item. And so that means I would start by introducing item vote two in E-Scribe, and I’m happy to read that out if you’d like. Just give me one sec. So I appreciate the development of a thoughtful plan based on the committee’s result.

[2:09:03] What I need to do though is just make sure that Council’s okay with proceeding that way, ‘cause if someone isn’t and they had planned to move a motion that may pull this apart differently, I just wanna make sure that I allow them to do that. So I just have to check to see if anybody, so you’d like to do it not the way that’s being suggested, but go ahead. Thanks, Mayor. Just the one for number two, that’s L&M for the furl to the Councillor expense account and the assistance stuff, I’m changing my vote on that. So this wouldn’t work for me ‘cause I got other items in there.

[2:09:38] I appreciate the deputy mayor trying to make this— This would work for you or would not work for you. Just if you could pull L&M out of two. Okay. Everything else seems to be good. Okay, we could do that. Councillor Frang. Thank you, yes. I just put a motion forward to refer the whole thing. So that would not, this would not work for me. Okay, perfect, give me a sec. ‘Cause here’s what I’m gonna let happen.

[2:10:17] So I’m gonna have, although there’s a plan to kind of break this up, I’m gonna have everything all on the floor for now so people can debate the whole thing. That way the referral can happen. If the referral passes, it’s not before us, if the referral fails, we can go back to this kind of structure if everybody’s okay with that. So for now, I think it probably makes sense to go to Councillor Frang first on referral since the referral is gonna take precedent no matter where it’s made. So I’ll go to Councillor Frang in the debate. What, oh, I need you, I need to know if there’s a second referral first, but you get to speak.

[2:10:53] So you gotta rise and actually make the referral. Thank you, yes. I’d like to make the referral and can I speak to what the language is in the referral? You can introduce the referral and then I’ll look for a seconder, but you can’t, like you’re not debating it, but you gotta explain what you’re doing. Yes, yes. So I would like to have it in eScribe that the final report of the 2025 Council Resourcing Review Task Force dated October 3rd, 2025 be referred to civic administration to report back at the December 9th, 2025 meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee with I, indexing scenarios of 60th and 65th percentile of the 2020 medium full-time income for Londoners as reported in the 2021 census and I bracket, a variety of additional compensation scenarios for serving on a minimum standing committee and agencies, boards and commissions, example, a percentage of salary based on a minimum number of appointments or certain amounts for certain ABCs based on workload, et cetera.

[2:11:49] And I can obviously debate that if I have a seconder. Councillor Hopkins, you’re willing to second it. Okay, so referral in order, no problem. You’re referring it with a purpose for referral.

[2:12:53] If you’d like to speak to that now, Ken, and then I’ll gather the speaker’s list. Thank you, and I’ve given this a bit of thought, given we’ve only had a week with this item, so it’s been quite quick. But based on my conversations with residents that I’ve had so far, a lot of them are very favorable towards Councillors making more money. The issue that many of them that I’ve spoken with have is the concept that not all of us are pulling the same workload. The difficulty with that being, it’s hard for us to enforce that as a requirement, that of course we talk about the voters every four years, they get to decide who they want to represent them and work on their behalf.

[2:13:31] That being said, we do have items in this task force report that outline certain requirements. For example, we want to codify that people have to sit on a minimum of one standing committee and three agencies, boards, and commissions. So we are trying to codify it. Some of the questions I had at SPPC last were, how can we enforce that? And the difficult part being, we can’t really. We can try to vote and put people on stuff, but again, we can’t force somebody, we can’t fire them if they don’t. And so that being said, I am looking to have some more information brought back to us. Again, I don’t necessarily see, I see, there being a benefit to doing this over the next month and having it done before next year.

[2:14:10] I personally don’t feel like today I need to make this decision. Additionally, I feel like there’s a lot of unknowns. So I do have one question through the chair to staff in regards to even us doing these calculations. I know the number for 70th percentile is being discussed as being 93,000, but that’s based on 2020 statistics information. I’m wondering through the chair to staff, if they can comment on how that number could greatly fluctuate when they’re actually doing the calculations in the next couple of years, and what if that could be actually more or less than 93,000 based on new information that we get from the census?

[2:14:58] I think that’s more a question for the main motion. You’re basically referring it. So asking questions on the motion you’re referring seems kind of counter to the direction you’re trying to go. If it gets referred, there’s all the time in the world to ask those things that’s not part of the substance of your referral. So I don’t think I’m going to have, if I allow that, then I think everybody’s going to go on the path of on the referral, asking a bunch of questions related to the main motion. So I’d rather keep this tight to the referral. Certainly when we get back to the main motion, if the referral fails, seems like a great question that could be asked. Sure, then I’ll share my comments. So my understanding is, again, this is one of the reasons why I want the referrals because today we are voting on information that we don’t actually necessarily know what the specific numbers will be because they will change over the next couple of years.

[2:15:41] I understand from staff having a discussion with them, I don’t have the exact numbers. But given that we are using the 2021 census with a 2020 medium full-time employment income, when we redo those calculations over the next couple of years, those can go up and down. And so we don’t actually know what those numbers are. And so I’d rather have a bit more information that staff could provide back at the December meeting, as well as, again, part two of my motion is in regards to additional compensation scenarios. So we talked about sitting on a minimum standing committee, a minimum agency-born commission, and then tying that to a specific amount of compensation, whether that is a specific dollar value or percentage, we’re doing it with the deputy mayor and budget chair role, we’re doing it with the committee chair roles, all of those which, of course, are appointed by the mayor.

[2:16:29] So I just wanted to highlight that there is an opportunity for us to look at trying to tie additional compensation to serving. And in that regard, I think, again, with my residents telling me their concern was trying to have equitable workload to make sure people are putting in the hours, I would feel more comfortable and confident being able to justify that to our residents. Just one second. I missed the last part of it.

[2:17:08] You didn’t ask, did you ask, okay, good. Thank you. I just wanna miss a question. The only thing I’ll clarify, as you said, that I appoint the deputy mayor and the budget chair. I actually make nominations to council. They’re appointed by by-law by a vote of all of council. So I’ll go to the next speaker on the list on the referral, which is I have Councillor Trostan and Councillor Ferrer so far on the list. Thank you, through the chair, I’d like to make an amendment to the amendment. It’s a referral. I’d like to make an amendment to the referral to add another point to the referral because I think there was something that’s important that was missing.

[2:17:46] Okay, just give me a sec. I just wanna, I think, I’m pretty sure you can do that. I just wanna just double check before I get more points and orders. Just one sec. Okay, Councillor, you can amend the referral, but you gotta stick to the components of the referral and the directions associated with it.

[2:18:36] You can’t use the amendment to the referral to amend the main motion. So it’s basically adding or adjusting the conditions to the referral and the reasons for it. So you gotta keep it tight to that. This is gonna be very tight and very brief. I’d like to add to the referral consideration, report back regarding the criteria and enforcement with respect to the public expectation of full-time service. I think that’s something that’s missing up, I’m arguing I won’t argue, that’s my motion to add to the referral. You gotta repeat that if you haven’t submitted it ‘cause the clerk’s trying to get it down and then I’ll look for a seconder.

[2:19:14] A report back include a further discussion of criteria and enforcement with respect to the public expectation of full-time service. Okay, is there a seconder for adding? That would be a clause, I see no seconder for that. Sorry, Councillor Hopkins.

[2:19:50] Councillor Trozawa, I need your mic. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I’ll second for the conversation. Okay, so we’re just gonna clean up the language a little bit. Then I’m gonna put it up so people can see it. But you can go ahead with the debate, Councillor Trozawa, now this is just on your amendment to the referral, not the other piece of the referral, not the main motion, just on your amendment to the referral. Thank you very much, Chair. I appreciate your flexibility.

[2:20:24] I think it makes sense to have this at the same time. Through the Chair, I think that one of the criticisms that I’ve heard that needs more explanation is how are we going to administer, monitor, enforce this expectation of full-time public service? ‘Cause I’ve heard from a number of residents that going to this increase is a lot. But if it’s really going to be for full-time service, then that’s okay.

[2:20:58] What’s not okay is to go to the full amount, as recommended in the SBPC report, but not have the further criteria about what constitutes full-time service at this point. And I think it’s reasonable to say, let’s at least have this discussion before we legislate this matter. And this can come back to us in December. I believe it can come back to us in January. I don’t think that there is a December 31st automatic shutdown day like there would be for a ward boundary.

[2:21:33] But this is something that we want to do as soon as possible. I think the question of what do we mean by full-time service needs to be flushed out a little more. And it’s the intention of this amendment to the referral to ask for more information about that. So thank you very much. Okay, any other speakers to Councillor Trostas, amendment to the referral? Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. It’s actually sorry. I had to Councillor Hopkins next, and then I’ll put you on the speaker’s list right after Councillor Hopkins.

[2:22:07] Yeah, I know this is an amendment to a report back. My question is through your worship. Is that information available in a report back? I’m just wondering what department or where we get this information from. I’m not sure who can answer the question. That’s why I thought it was important to have it on the floor and have the conversation. I do want to get some kind of an understanding. Are we just going through these motions or is there information available to us?

[2:22:43] Well, I’m gonna go back to the mover and I’ll ask the mover to keep the answer really tight like I did before to just see if you can address the Councillor’s question and then we’ll proceed. Certainly this is why I said civic administration most broadly and didn’t narrow it to a particular department. The question of whether or not it’s within the power of the city to even try to legislate. This may be something that legal wants to give us an opinion on but by saying civic administration I’m not limiting it to any particular department. If we don’t know what the answer to this is and we don’t know whether the city knows what the answer to this is, the least we should do is ask whether they could give us any more information on this.

[2:23:29] If they can’t, they can. That’s how it happens. You’re good, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, your worship. So I’ll stick to just the amendment to the referral first which I’m encouraging colleagues to just vote down and move on with this discussion. First of all, we spent over two hours in debate on this task force report at committee. What to ask civic administration for what the public expectation is of full-time service?

[2:24:07] There are half a million people in the city. The public expectation varies wildly from person to person. A lot of people and I encountered this myself this weekend, an individual who actually asked me, I don’t know what your job even is. That is the reality of what the public perception is. There is no one defined public expectation beyond what I think the one criteria we could fairly understand that the public expectation would be is that full-time hours are between 40 and 50 hours a week like every other job that can range depending on the workplace, 40 to 44 is sort of the norm.

[2:24:44] In some workplaces, it’s 50. But I think that is what the public expectation of full-time is. I don’t think we need staff to report or amend or refer on that to get back to that. I think to say that staff would have other criteria that they could bring forward that represents the public expectation is neither realistic nor fair to ask of our staff. It would be their opinions, but it wouldn’t be the public expectation. And we’ve actually had a task force that has spent the last almost nine months, which included public feedback surveys and input to get to the report that we were provided with at committee.

[2:25:24] And so speak to the employee for all at that point in time, but I’m asking colleagues to defeat this amendment. Anybody anyone else on Councilor Trossa’s addition to the referral? Go ahead, Councilor Rhonda. Thank you. So I understand the intent that the Councilor has with this motion and that is that by way of what’s in front of us and the discussion we’ve had from SPPC, it seems as though we’re narrowing into a definition around full-time service role.

[2:26:08] And in the actual motion, it does talk about enforcement around that particular language around the role. And it does beg the question, what does that actually mean? So it’s one thing to say we’re going to clarify and that we’re going to bring back more information, but what happens when that is potentially challenged in the future because there’s no way to actually define that differently from provincial legislation and it has to be defined differently than the Employment Standards Act.

[2:26:55] So I think this is where we get into a very particularly challenging part of this discussion is we’ve tried to include some parameters that are part of the Employment Standards Act in the main motion. So what the Councilor I believe is trying to do is trying to guide that discussion so that community understands what the expectation is going forward. So my challenge is I don’t think that that can be provided to us because it’s so gray.

[2:27:32] And so although I appreciate the intent, I also understand the challenge with actually bringing us back something in writing that’s sufficiently going to guide the what we’re looking to move forward. But it did help me to rethink my position on the language that we’re using around full-time service role. So appreciate the discussion. I have myself on the list next.

[2:28:04] There’s a lot of people standing. So I’m going to have Councilor Raman chair. Thank you, I have the chair, go ahead. Yes, so I’ll speak briefly to this. I think I appreciate the Councilor’s thoughts on trying to bring this forward. I’m not sure that this is going to be actually functional and having civic administration actually bring to any sort of resolution because there’s a piece here about what the public sector expectations are. Having served as a ward councilor, served as mayor, gotten to know a lot of you in the work you do in your wards. I think what the expectation from the public is is different across the different wards of the city.

[2:28:38] There are some wards who feel you should be in the community in that ward helping each and every day on local ward issues. There are other wards who feel like you should be serving on boards and doing work at City Hall, serving on other committees. There are different expectations for different parts of the city. There are some who feel that there’s more commercial and industrial based downtown has a completely different set of expectations on its Council than some of the other pieces. So I think if you’re going to try to cram this into, here’s the public expectation of a full time service, you’re not going to get the same answer depending on the wards and there’s not going to be any way to kind of make this a cookie cutter approach.

[2:29:15] What I will say from my time on Council since 2014 is, I still, and I’ve said this many times, this is a full time role. The city is 450,000 people and growing every day. You have significant responsibilities under significant pieces of legislation across the entire spectrum of legal legislation. You have a huge responsibility to the care and wellbeing of staff in this city. Like the work that we do each and every day as a Council is a full time role. The hours that all of you put in are full time hours. Trying to go out and then put this in a box, I just don’t think is possible for criteria enforcement and public expectations.

[2:29:52] So I think the intent is very good. I think it’s a question that’s very difficult to answer. So the desire to want to craft it into a box is admirable. I just don’t think it’s possible, and so I would encourage colleagues to defeat this part of the amendment. Thank you, returning the chair to you with no one on the speaker’s list. Okay, any other speakers? Can I respond? No, you don’t get to respond, yeah. Unfortunately, you don’t get to respond, Councilor. Okay, all right, we’re gonna open that for voting. This is just Councilor Trossa’s piece. Closing the vote, motion fails two to 13.

[2:30:40] Okay, and now we’re back to the Councilor Frank referral of which Councilor Trossa and Councilor Frank have spoken to. I have Councilor Ferrara and Hopkins currently on the speakers list for that. So I’ll go to Councilor Ferrara next. Thank you, Mayor. So I am going to say straight up, I’m gonna support the referral, but if it doesn’t pass, I’m voting down the stipend and voting down A. And the specific reason is because I do hear a lot of public expectation and public perception. There is one piece that for sure reaches every single word, and that is the public trust.

[2:31:16] And that is ensuring that we close the gap of public trust. When I started this Council, I know that there was a gap in the trust, and we should close that. Councilor Frank’s motion brings in a pretty good mechanism, I think, to ensure that we have that mechanism that defines the expectation and that has some type of accountability for that expectation, it anchors us. I feel like if we were to raise the stipend, we gotta make sure that we’re anchored so we can maintain that public trust. Otherwise, we will be potentially widening that gap. And I think it’s a zero-sum game here.

[2:31:53] I think if we were to increase our stipend without being anchored on the stipend, and I shouldn’t say it, increase our stipend, we are increasing the next Council term, but I see the majority of us are running again. So it is fairly true to say that. But if we don’t have that accountability, then we may see this zero-sum game transfer into the increased stipend, the lesser of ability to do our job, the lesser of ability to have credibility, the lesser of our ability to actually be effective in this role. So I like the mechanisms that Councilor Frank brought through, so thank you for that.

[2:32:25] For the 65 percentile, I don’t really have a decision on that yet, but if this is a referral, so it does give me more time, for this is something that I would support. And if it doesn’t get supported, I’m voting it down. And I’m voting it down just because of the conversations I’ve had, the amount of people that have reached out to me, the time that I’ve had to think on this particular case. Now, does the Councilor’s role, are we underpaid, potentially? Is this a full-time job? Is this a part-time job? For me, I don’t treat it as a full-time job. I don’t treat it as a part-time job.

[2:32:57] This is a lifestyle job. War 13 has assumed my life, and I have assumed war 13. So the full-time role and the timing for that actually would probably be lesser of the amount of effort I put in. And so I see why we should be considering this, but at the same time, if we don’t have that balance, if we’re not anchoring ourself, then this may potentially turn out to hurt our ability to do that. So I’m going to support that. I see a mechanism here that makes sense. It doesn’t have any enforcement.

[2:33:30] It seems to be voluntary. If you do want to have a stipend that matches your role. So I’m going to support Council Frank here, but if the referral goes down, I’m not supporting the stipend increase. And there’s some other ones who will speak on that on the main motion. That’s what Hopkins, your next. Yeah, this is just on the referral, and I’m more than pleased to second the referral going back. I think for me, a lot has changed since SBBC. And one thing I’ve heard loud and clear from residents is that we need to be paid more.

[2:34:09] Exactly what that amount is. I have difficulty in explaining that. Understanding that the task force and task force gave us a great report. I understand compared to other municipalities, we are paid 25% less. They picked the 70th percentile. I also know they looked at 60 and 80. So this gives us an opportunity. You got some numbers back. Really understand. I don’t understand something. Something that is important as voting on next Council’s stipend. I need to understand it.

[2:34:47] So I do think the timeline is kind of short for me, but I’m not going to quiggle about that. I would think the information can come back to us. But I do really appreciate the extra time that we have. And that we’ve heard from the public that they want to be part of that. And I know at SBBC, it was very easy for me to go, okay, task force, you did the work, that’s arm’s length. But since then, I have changed my mind.

[2:35:21] So hoping you will support Councillor Frank’s referral. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. So again, colleagues, as I said earlier in this meeting, I’m going to ask you to defeat this referral. And I’m listening to what you’re saying. Councillor Hopkins just said the task force looked at 60%. They rejected bringing it forward as a recommendation. And we put forward an arm’s length task force because this is not about any of us.

[2:35:57] This is about restructuring the next council and not just the next council, every council in the future for this city to be a full-time expectation role. That is at the heart of what the task force recommendation is. So to look at 60, when the task force itself with some very smart expert people, including someone who has served in this horseshoe, rejected going to 60 to say that we should be considering that I think is a non-starter for me. Once again, we are picking numbers, not based on expert knowledge, not based on the research we’ve done, but based on maybe we’re feeling uncomfortable ‘cause we’ve had some negative feedback from some members of the public.

[2:36:45] Although I’ve heard a lot of people say, a lot of members of the public recognize this is an increasingly complex job. And it should be a full-time focus equivalent and that they want people to be compensated well so that they get good people to do the job. I hear a bit more public engagement. And I just said this on the last referral amendment. The task force existed for almost nine months. There were public surveys. There were meetings that the public could attend and provide their feedback to. And so now we’re going to say that we’re gonna do one more cycle and we’ll decide then.

[2:37:21] I disagree with the comments that we don’t need to make a decision because January one, we are entering an election year. And before nominations open, before that process starts, before any of us can register or not register, before it challengers can register, the clerks have to put together information packages. And for people who are out there thinking about whether or not they may or may not put their name on a ballot, what this stipend is going to be does matter. I know individuals in this community, very qualified individuals who did not put their name on a ballot because they could not take a $30,000 pay cut to serve on council, would have been an excellent member of council, this woman.

[2:37:58] But she could not do it and support her mortgage and her kids. And that was a factor. And for somebody who’s thinking about it in the next few months, whether they’re gonna put their name forward or not, they have to know. And that information has to be available in the clerks package. People will probably be starting to think about this over the Christmas break, whether or not they’re gonna offer their name for public service. I think we all recognize that it is a privilege to serve in this chamber. I think we all came to this chamber with the best intentions for our community and there are others out there who are thinking about the same thing.

[2:38:31] And because we were able to make it work, doesn’t mean that we are not excluding people by referring this and not coming to a decision at a time when people have to start thinking about whether or not they are going to run again. It cannot be. Our decision today, colleagues, I implore you, cannot be about us. It cannot be about the 14 individuals that sit around this horseshoe. It has to be about the future of our city. And while I appreciate, and I do appreciate it, and Councilor Frank and I had a good conversation on Friday about how can we require, how can we mandate, how can we enforce full time?

[2:39:08] And the reality is, it comes down to the people who are put in this role, determining that they’re going to do it in a full time equivalent role. And that can look very different for different people. Some people want to do town hall meetings. Some people sit and have coffee meetings in backyards with residents. Same value, different way of doing the job. Point of order, go ahead. Microphone please. Sorry, just, I think we’re strictly, we had already dealt with one amendment that goes into full time versus not the didn’t pass. Just really trying to keep it tight to the one on the floor.

[2:39:42] I think we’re straight. Yeah, thanks, and I concur with that. So if you keep it tight to the piece that we’re on on the referral and the reasons for it, that makes sense if the referral passes, there’ll be lots more debate on this. If the referral fails, there’ll be lots more debate on this. So there’s probably an opportunity to make a number of these points in the main tip. So go ahead. Well, that’s why it was coming back to the ability to tie to metrics. We don’t have. So to say that civic administration report back on scenarios, we actually haven’t even provided any specifics on the scenarios.

[2:40:19] Do we want to get to the 70th percentile? And so civic administration report back is about scenarios that get us to 70%. That’s not even in the amendment or the referral. So I don’t think that this is, with all due respect, I understand how the council is looking for some enforcement mechanisms. I don’t think this is how we can get here. What we are talking about passing, if it passes, is codifying things in our council procedures by-law. That is the document that governs how we behave. 30 seconds. That’s the document that also guides the integrity commissioner on code of conduct to some degree, whether we’re not, we violated council by-laws.

[2:40:53] I think that’s where your enforcement mechanism folks, and I don’t think that this can do anything except delay the conversation and the decision. Okay, my speakers list includes Councillor Palosa, Councillor Pribble and Councillor McAllister so far. Go ahead, Councillor Palosa. Thank you. I will highlight the concern about the timeline we’re working on in regards to a referral. Speaking strictly to II, I appreciate where we’re trying to get to.

[2:41:28] I believe this might be something brought better through a standing committee looking at this information, just ‘cause we mandate that someone serves on a minimum number of agency boards or commissions. We have nothing in place right now for an annual update or report to a committee and council that if a council are actually attended said meetings, did they attend said meetings and just check in and leave? I know in the past, all have happened. I know after three meetings you could be requested to be replaced, but serving on being appointed to three and actually serving in a meaningful capacity or different conversations, which I don’t think II actually gets to, so it won’t be able to support it today.

[2:42:10] Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Pribble on the referral and the reasons for it. Thank you, Chair, and sort of chair to the staff. I just want to clarification and just confirmation. The council resource review task, they brought forward numerous points for us to consider. And I have a question, are there any of those points that are time limited for us to constrain the next council as of October?

[2:42:43] So bottom line is by when is there a certain deadline that this need to be implemented for the staff to make the budgetary or guideline restrictions starting the new council? So this is more of a, I see this as on the referral because from what I hear the councilors asking is, is there any sort of deadlines that we have to make this decision by either legislatively or otherwise? That might be the clerks.

[2:43:23] Give me a second to figure out who’s going to answer this because this could go several ways. So I’m going to answer the question and then I can go to some staff.

[2:44:07] So the short answer is no, there’s not, there’s not a restriction on when we need to do it. I mean, the city of Toronto raised their salaries mid-term. Like you don’t, it doesn’t have to be, they could be done at any point. In this case, the recommendation is for the next term council, which would mean there would be a budgetary decision, but that would be the 2027 budget. So it’s not even a budget decision that affects 2026. So in conference with the clerks, there’s no legislative restriction on doing this whenever. It would just be for our staff to allocate the budget pieces and that would be a regular budget cycle, but that, again, this doesn’t impact anything until 2027 anyways, and I see staff nodding.

[2:44:50] So I hope that answers your question council approval. It certainly does, and thank you for that. I do agree that we should make the decision soon, and as the peer mayor said, we cannot wait, and I do hope that there will be many qualified individuals in London who will put their names on the ballot, and there’s going to be 14 very competitive races. I’m truly hoping for that and we’ll have a great turnout at the election next year. Having said that, I do want to have the opportunity to say to the residents and to the voters that yes, we made the decision, but we explored all our opportunities of the advice.

[2:45:27] I think the task force did a great job, I really do. It’s not in disrespect of the task force, but on the other hand, when I look at a big picture, we could have additional resorts and that’s coming from the staff. Based on the deadline or the date that is from us in the motion, I will be supporting it, because I do believe that even with this, we will be able to make a decision in January of next year, and therefore that’s still eight, nine months, and I do believe that the qualified individuals, or sorry, the individuals who would be interested of running, that they still have time to make their decision in terms of their personal lives, in terms of their, if they are employed somewhere else.

[2:46:05] So thank you for your answer, thank you for your answer, Mayor, and I will be supporting what’s in front of us. Thank you. Right, Councillor McAllister, your next. Thank you and through the Mayor. Appreciate the discussion today. I know this is never an easy task. I think with I, I think we’re kind of going in circles all the time and trying to find that perfect number. I honestly don’t know if there is a perfect number. I do appreciate in terms of what the Mayor said, and the expectations of award counts are very depending on what part of the city you’re in, and I think that kind of lies at the heart of the difficulty of this.

[2:46:42] I do like with II though that what we’re trying to do, or at least my understanding of the referral, is try to come to a general agreement in terms of a base pay. And then I think Council used to operate on this anyways, where you would have the additional compensation for additional workload. Because in terms of the feedback I’ve received, I think the public do struggle with when you say, well, I’m on this many ABCs, I’m on this many committees, some of us have had to do double duty, and that does add to our workload.

[2:47:16] And it’s difficult to explain to the public in terms of the expectations is that we have had to accommodate that just based on how things have landed. But I personally think it’s important, so the public understand what the expectation of a Councilor’s role is, is that these are options. I don’t know if we’re ever gonna come to a general agreement in terms of full time, hard time. I think people’s perceptions of that are always gonna vary. But I think if you have a base pay rate, and Councilors could start there, and then you have minimum standards in terms of sitting on committees, the extra percentage for chairs, that’s an acknowledgement that there’s extra workload, and that you’ll be doing that.

[2:47:55] Because I think at the end of the day, if you decide to run for Council, I think a lot of folks do look at this job as there’s a constituency element. I think most people have a basic understanding that that is part of it. And maybe there’s a Councilor, for instance, who wants to run, and that is the core of what they wanna do. They want to be a consistent Councillor, and just do the base. And there will be a base pay, and that will be the basic agreement that this is how much you’ll be paid. And based on your workload, that’s what it will be. But again, that’s difficult, because depending on what part of the city you represent, downtown’s got us unique challenges.

[2:48:35] I have my own unique challenges. And I think the word unique came up a lot in terms of the conversation the task force had. So I understand the struggle, this has been a very difficult conversation. I personally do think a referral, I think we can have more conversations about this. I don’t know if we’ll get to a better place, but I think even for the public to have a better understanding of what we’re trying to do, try to put in some mechanisms. We don’t necessarily have the enforcement tools, but I think trying to have some minimum standards is a good idea.

[2:49:07] Okay, I’ll let speakers to the referral. Councillor ramen. Thank you and through you. So I just wanna make some clarifying, or ask some clarifying questions related to the referral. So first on part I, where it says indexing scenarios of 60th and 60th percentile of the 2020 median full-time employment income, for London as reported in the 2021 census, it refers back to the report from the task force.

[2:49:42] But I think there’s some missing pieces to how this is crafted. So first, the way that it was word in the initial motion is 70th percentile median tied to some wording around full-time expectations, as well as recognition of the role. This no longer does that. It just says, hey, we’ve got a referral on the floor, bring back indexing scenarios that doesn’t tie to the rationale per se, but more just to bring back additional numbers.

[2:50:23] So for that, I think the expectation is that the Councillors moving the motion are saying, they believe that the role should be indexed to either the 60th or the 65th percentile based on the same rationale that the committee came up with. Can I confirm that? I think the only person who can answer that is Councillor Frank. So if you wanna give that a try, go ahead, but keep the answer tight to the question, please.

[2:50:56] Yeah, I don’t understand the question, so perhaps if you could reframe it. Go ahead, Councillor Roman. Sure, so I’m just asking in the original motion where it ties the percentage to the expectation for the role, are you doing same? So you’re saying 60th percentile or 65th percentile, and you’re tying it to that first part of A, which says recognizing London’s growth and the public expectation of full-time hours for this role. ‘Cause it feels disjointed in my perspective from what is in front of us from the task force.

[2:51:34] Go ahead, sure, happy to answer. I’m not sure if it will directly answer your question, but I just wanted to see what the numbers were for the various scenarios. So even, I read the numbers for the 70th in the news, so I’d like to actually have the numbers reported to us on a piece of paper from staff, letting us know what those numbers are. I’m not assigning meaning to it from the task force report. Go ahead, Councillor ramen. Thank you and through you. Okay, I appreciate that. I understand what you’re saying now, and I appreciate that clarification.

[2:52:08] For me, that 70th percentile, being tied to the task force recommendation, is part and parcel of the logic behind why they came back with the recommendation. So now what I’m having challenges with is, if we had said, send this back to an outside body to make this decision and the recommendation, is different than, hey, now we are setting a number, and we are deciding whether that’s the 60th or the 65th.

[2:52:43] And that actually makes me a little bit more uncomfortable with the process, with respect to II, the variety of additional compensation scenarios. It looks like it says a percentage of salary based on a minimum number of appointments. So basically, now we’re setting a salary percentage based, or we’re asking for a report back, on a salary expectation of a percentage based on minimum numbers of appointments served. And then it says, potentially certain amounts for certain ABCs based on workload.

[2:53:22] I do think this is a much bigger conversation that in order for us to flush that out, would have to go to a committee. And I do think that it’s a slippery slope to all of a sudden ask civic administration to come back with a percentage of salary based on how many committees we serve on. So if a referral was to go to GWG, or a referral was to go to GWG and back to a task force, then I could probably get behind that. I understand the premise here, but I think that where it connects to now is a little bit more challenging for me, because I think now we’re getting into a fully council making a decision about council compensation for the upcoming terms of council.

[2:54:15] Okay, on the referral, other speakers. I don’t see any on the referral, so this is the referral that Councillor Frank made, seconded by Councillor Hopkins, and the two reasons for it. We’re gonna open that for voting. Opposing the vote, motion fails, six to nine.

[2:54:55] Okay, so now we’re back on the main motion, which Councillor Frank, all she did was move up and make a referral, so no one’s spoken, so we can have a debate on just the main motion now. So on the main, I’ll look for any speakers. And again, like this is on all the components, we can break down, we can break down the votes by the way that the deputy mayor suggested before, but I think I’m just gonna give in, given how the debate’s been structured, I just don’t wanna box people in for their comments.

[2:55:28] Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you, to my colleagues, every one of us does this job differently. It’s not my job to determine how Councillor Frank does her job as an example, or Councillor Ferrera’s job to determine how Councillor Cuddy does his job. So I’m coming back to the original piece.

[2:56:01] Every one of you put your name forward to serve, but you all know that this job requires a tremendous, I actually agree with Councillor Ferrera. I feel like I’ve been assumed into ward two, and I don’t actually have an identity separate from ward two. I’m a living and breathing part of it at this point in time, and that is more, I would argue, than a full-time role. And I say this personally and respectfully, through to Councillor Ferrera, I know you work more than 50 hours a week. You should not be paid at the level that we’re paying people at right now.

[2:56:39] But the people who get to determine, ultimately, the value that we bring to this city still are the voters on election day, and they will determine whether myself, Councillor Ferrera, Councillor Layman, or Councillor McAllister, or anyone else, brings a value that’s worth whatever the new compensation is, or if a challenger who puts their name forward and brings a new vision to the table, is better suited to receive that salary. It’s not about us as individuals.

[2:57:15] We all work at this job, we all do it differently, and I understand that some of us feel, ‘cause I have certainly felt that way, that some of us carry more weight than others. Some, by the boards and commissions we serve on, because even those aren’t equitable. There are boards with very, very heavy lifting. Seven of you are serving on transit right now. A very, very important service to our community. Others are serving on the health unit, critical for the public safety and well-being of this city. Others serve on the police, again, equally important and critical for community and public safety.

[2:57:53] Councillor McAllister and I sit online in housing. I know we put in a considerable number of hours every month on housing and trying to address the social housing challenges in the city. There are other boards that are perhaps a little less work, not that we don’t have fun doing them, but Councillor Palose and I, I would argue probably don’t put in quite as much work on tourism as we do on some of the other boards we’re on, which have a little bit heavier load to carry. And I know Councillor Palose has served on some boards with some pretty heavy lifting too. So that is what this comes down to. Even in looking for that equitable workload, it’s never gonna be 100% equitable.

[2:58:32] Boards have different workloads. In fact, workloads rise and fall, depending on the issues of the day. Obviously in September, I suspect that folks who are currently serving on the transit commission heard a lot more from residents who were upside about bus delays or buses that weren’t on time than they did in July. So even the workload through the course of the year rises and falls on boards and commissions. What doesn’t change is that 14 individuals and a mayor are going to have to be elected next year to carry on the business of a $1.3 billion a year, roughly operating budget corporation and another treasurer can correct my number later if she’d like another roughly billion dollars a year in capital work that we do.

[2:59:23] Over 120 different programs and service areas now in the city across the work of our staff and our boards and commissions. This is a complex job, and every one of you does it for the good of the community, but every one of you still has to. Also think about putting food on your table, paying your mortgage, putting gas in your car, or if you’re Councillor Frank getting a trans-pass. Sorry, Councillor Frank, just making a little lightheartedness of what is a serious conversation here. So we’ve had an independent task force with some expertise in this issue.

[3:00:00] Come back with a series of recommendations for us. We’ve had several hours of discussion, but like we do on all kinds of issues that come before us, it’s time to make hard decision. And each one of you can justify to your constituents how you put in 40 plus hours a week in different ways ‘cause we’re not all the same, and it is different. But those are the individual conversations that we have to have, because one thing we are not given as municipal Councillors is the authority to determine our colleagues’ job performance.

[3:00:34] It’s about doing the job to the best of our ability and hold second teacher Councillors will continue to pursue this role to do the job to the best of their abilities for, as Councillor Pribble has on his door for half a million of Londoners. So that’s what we have to decide on today, the best course forward. So I am encouraging you, let’s move forward with these votes and support the recommendations over the task force so that we can establish a future direction for future councils. Okay, other speakers to this. Go ahead, Councillor Ferrera.

[3:01:09] Thank you, Mayor. So I think the conversation here has definitely been a good one. I see that the referral was not voted to support, so I do request to pull that, you know, to the, sorry, to making sure that we’re appropriately compensated, like it is true, in my opinion, or not appropriately compensated. But that’s not the reason why I’m voting it down. Like I said, I just want those mechanisms. I want that anchor for the public trust, specifically for that, you know, for me, you know, I struggle, I’ll say it, this shirt is 10 years old.

[3:01:47] This jacket was given to me by Councillor Hillier. So there are ways you can move forward on that, but is it fair, probably not. But I don’t agree with the argument at all. That extra stipend, an extra wage, will actually bring in better talent and more candidates. I think the ideal candidate is the one who has a duty to serve their people, period. I know, at the door, Londoners are very good. They got a very good gut on that. And a candidate that comes to the door that’s only there because the stipend is at a level that is appropriate in their eyes, compared to a candidate that’s there because they solely want to serve their community and will make sacrifices.

[3:02:29] Which candidate do you want to choose? Like I will take this to the end and I will work for my people. And I think those are the candidates that London needs. So that’s why I’m still not supporting the stipend increase. On top of that, for the chair stipends. Like, you know, I’m making a lot of flips from SPPC. But this is just for my conversations with people. Thinking about it, really thinking about it. Looking at the task forces documents that they have given, the ones that are available, which by the way, I thought the task force did a very good job.

[3:03:03] Very well-in-depth conversations, vetted research. But when it does come to the stipends for the chair roles, you know, and this is not to anyone specific. This is for the strong air power specifically in the future. It could either be intentional or unintentional. That 4% increase for a chair’s role, even though it is deserved because of the strong air power, it could be used in a way that is not necessarily democratic. So I can’t support that one either. Like I said, it’s a zero sum game with the public trust and the public perception.

[3:03:41] So I guess the last thing I want to say is for those referrals, like I think the task force did some good work. And for me, like I said at SPPC, it’s about equipping ourselves with the right tools to do the job as effectively as possible. I see some areas in the task force report that gives me new tools in the toolkit, which is exactly what I want to do. I need more ability and better tools and newer tools to be effective in my role. So I like that and I’m going to be voting for those things. And I would vote for the stipend increase.

[3:04:15] However, like I said, if it’s not anchored with that mechanism to ensure that a counselor will work the full time, do the roles that are expected, there’s a very good possibility that we are giving that extra increase to those that may not do the job. I know counselors here are doing the job. I’m not speaking about us. I’m just talking about in the future. So I would ask to pull the referrals to the governance working group for those items. I would ask to pull A for the stipend increase and I would ask to pull the chair stipend increases as well.

[3:04:53] I’m voting against all those. Everything else I am supporting. But that’s just where I’m at. Londoners need us to work for them and need to have a duty. And I would worry a stipend increase that would open the door for new candidates that would come in because of that. Could potentially split a boat and have someone who is there specifically for the duty for the people to be split up and not be able to get in. So it’s a very hard issue, very tough decision. And if we did have those mechanisms, if that referral was there, I would be supporting this.

[3:05:32] But I just need that balance. And that’s the only reason why I’m voting against it. So I apologize for flipping from SBPC. But this is— - 30 seconds. This is just God, it has to be this way. So I guess I’ll leave it there then. Okay, other speakers on the main motion. Go ahead, Councilor Trossal. Thank you much, Chair. And through you, I’m also gonna be changing some of my votes.

[3:06:09] I think it’s, I’ve heard a lot of things. And the main thing I heard was we’re upping this salary to reflect full-time service. My motion on this wasn’t successful so I won’t dwell on it. But I don’t think we’ve explained what do we really mean by a conflict of commitment? We’re gonna have to do that. Absolutely gonna have to do that. But I don’t think we can, I’m not willing at this point to support part A without seeing progress made on that.

[3:06:42] So I will be voting against the main point here, which is A. The other thing I’m changing my vote on is the extra compensation for committee members. The reason for that is there are four years, three committees. I would like to see the committee chairs rotated more. And I see committee chairs as something that, at some point during the council term, most councilors who are willing to do it should be rotated through a committee chair or a committee vice chair.

[3:07:20] And maybe the committee vice chairs should then be presumptively the next committee chair. But rather than, rather than have permanent committee chairs or people who are typically committee chairs and give them extra compensation, I would rather see that duty more equitably distributed among the councilors. Not everybody’s gonna wanna do it, but I think we can do that. So I’ll be changing my vote on the main portion at this time. I think while I think on the face of it, the 70% seems reasonable without more detail about what constitutes full-time service.

[3:08:03] And the flip side of that is what constitutes a conflict of commitment. I’m not prepared to support that at this time. And I hope we can get to that point in the next term. Because I think a lot of the councilors on this council really, honestly, do deserve more. And I am troubled by the 25% gap. And I’m hoping we can close that. And I think the referral speaks to that. So all in all, I once again wanna thank the expert ask force. I think they did a great service.

[3:08:38] The idea of appointing an arms length expert panel is a good idea. And that doesn’t mean that they had enough time to flush out all of the details. ‘Cause even in their report, they said that the issue of full-time service will need to be flushed out more. So I think I’ve stated my position. I have no regrets for changing my vote from the SPPC. And it’s based on things I’ve heard from the committee. And my rereading very carefully of the report. And my sense of where we’re going with this.

[3:09:14] So I think I’ve said, I’m so hesitant to sit down ‘cause at council, you’re done when you sit down. So I’m just, tell me I’m out of time. I’d love to do that, but you’re not yet. Oh, all right, ‘cause that always makes it easy. I think with that, I’m gonna sit down and thank you very much for indulging me. Thank you. Well, you can always change the procedure, buy a lot and make it three minutes if you want in the future rather than five, but I gotta be fair to everybody. Other speakers to the entire main motion. Go ahead, Councillor Hopkins.

[3:09:49] Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. I did not support the 4% increase on chairs. I didn’t support the severance package as well. I won’t be supporting it here. I will be changing my vote. I have no apologies for changing my vote and not supporting the 70 percentile. I’m disappointed the referral wasn’t supported. And the reason is I need numbers. I need facts, I need information. If I do not have that, I’m not confident that I would just go ahead and, without questions, support the 70th percentile.

[3:10:33] Having said that, I’m many thanks to Dr. Borac and the committee for all their work. It was a great report coming back to us. I gave us a lot of information and a lot of information that still needs to be done in the next council as well. So with that, I appreciate the time that you gave me. Okay, other speakers. Sorry, I’m just gonna get texts from staff.

[3:11:09] Other speakers on the main motion. Well, I’ll speak to it, I guess. So I’ll hand the chair over to Councillor Robin. Thank you. I have the chair and your time begins now. Perfect, okay, thank you. I wanna thank colleagues for the debate and discussion today. I wanna, in a weird way, I’m gonna actually just gonna share my thoughts on my own decision-making on this ‘cause I think I’ve seen a couple of things over the past week that are kind of frustrating, but also from my particular position, I think everybody forgot that the mayor isn’t getting a raise and that it’s Councillors of everybody talked about 14 a lot today, 15 members of council.

[3:11:55] And I support the committee’s recommendations, so I’m not asking to adjust that. But I understand kind of the frustrations that you might get about people understanding what’s in the task force report. Because we make decisions based on the information that comes before us, we read very extensive reports. Other people do not do that. So if someone, say, takes a screenshot of a nice little media graphic that says, “These people supported 40% raise and these people didn’t,” that’s the thing that gets posted. Doesn’t talk about tying it to full time, doesn’t talk about the other pieces of it, doesn’t talk about you should serve on ex members who have committees, doesn’t talk about all the details of the report, doesn’t talk about the consultation they did, the expertise of the individuals, doesn’t talk about any of that.

[3:12:38] People just get a little upset, they get a little angry and they let you know about it. The amount of times I had to remind people that I’m not actually included in that from a salary perspective. And neither is the current positions, it’s all for next council. Was a little bit frustrating to go through, but it is what it is and this happens with many issues. On the decision-making on this, from my particular vantage point, there’s lots of easy ways to make this decision, right? It’s very easy when you don’t have the ability, as most other jobs do, where you could just go out and do, have a job evaluation done and say, what does this job pay?

[3:13:15] You can’t ask your union or association to say, I don’t think my job is valued at the right level, go out and do a comparison. You know, we don’t get to do that in the same way because ultimately the access, we actually have to vote on the final decision. And the best we can possibly do is farm it out to an independent group, get the recommendations, and then say the supplies to the next council. Not every municipality said that. I mentioned the City of Toronto. They basically took the recommendations and applied it to themselves immediately. Other cities have done that. So I think based on the information we have for us, we’re trying to structure this as best as we possibly can. But it still makes it a very difficult decision because ultimately the public doesn’t really care, sometimes not all members of the public, but some don’t care about the details.

[3:13:58] You know, they just see the bottom line number, the way it’s reported and they want to cover that. So I’ve had people who advise me politically to say, forget the rest of council, vote against this. It’s the best thing for you. Don’t benefit from the result. That’s how you should vote. And I said, but that’s not how I made decisions my entire time on council. From the day I started up until this day, I’ve read the reports, I’ve looked at the information, I’ve valued the process, listened to my colleagues, and then I made decisions. And on this, what we have is an independent task force who’s gone out and made recommendations back to us.

[3:14:31] And my votes at committee, if you look at them, exactly parallel the task force. I supported everything in the task force report. I voted against the piece that was added at the committee, because that’s how I voted with previous task forces. Because in my mind, I have to decide, did I think the task force did something wrong? Are there other pieces that they should have looked at? Am I not satisfied with the thoroughness? Am I not satisfied with the report? Do I think there’s errors in it? And I don’t have any reason to suggest that that’s the case in this point. So I think although I don’t benefit from the results, I do think the task force did a thoughtful job in providing recommendations.

[3:15:07] I think it’s a very difficult vote to go out and support the task force, because you’ll get a lot of pressure, if you vote that way. For people who vote yesterday, you’re gonna get, you’re gonna get some nasty emails, right? But we make decisions around this council based on the information we get and trying to make the best possible decision with that. Now, I’m not saying that means if you vote against, you don’t have very legitimate reasons, ‘cause you are allowed to reject components of this, you are allowed to listen to the debate, you are allowed to make different decisions. But no one around this horseshoe, and I don’t think anybody is, is making this decision based on what is politically easy, everybody’s trying to make the best possible decision based on the information we have before us.

[3:15:43] And I think that we’ve done that in our entire term. So what I’m gonna do, because I would be in a very awkward spot, if I was deciding to vote, not benefiting from the position, I should say, the position not benefiting from the results of the task force recommendations, if I was the deciding vote, changing that for the rest of the council, that’d be an awkward spot to be in. And I don’t have any reason not to support the task force recommendations. So what I’m gonna do is, I’m gonna stick with the votes that I made at committee. I’m gonna support the task force recommendations. I’m going to reject the pieces that were added on, except for the referral to governance, I think that’s a reasonable level of detail.

[3:16:19] And I’m gonna proceed that way, and I don’t know how the vote’s gonna go, but I appreciate the debate today, and I wanna recognize that every member of council is trying to make the best possible decision with the information before them, and I believe we do that on every decision around this changing. Time, thank you. Returning the chair to you with no one on the speaker’s list. Anybody else wanna speak to this? Go ahead, Councilor McAllen. Thank you, through the mayor. And I appreciate those words, ‘cause I do feel like through this whole conversation, you’re trying to be the objective voice and see everyone’s point of view. One of the things I did in coming to the decision, I went back and I looked at coverage from past councils and what they had to decide.

[3:17:02] And one of the things that became abundantly obvious to me is that this job is not static. One that has changed. It will continue to change, and I’m trying to look at this with that forward lens and see the city is growing, these responsibilities grow with the city. And so I’m trying to look to the future. And past councils have had these tough decisions as well. I mean, you go back in time and you look at this, this was very much a part-time job. You have some boards that operate on a volunteer basis.

[3:17:34] You have something to get a small stipend. And again, we’ve said this many times, not all boards are created equally, not all cities are created equally. We all have different populations, different issues. And so I’ve tried to weigh a lot of things in this discussion, and I’m trying to look to the future and see what London has that big city and as it evolves and what this role will entail. And I think for future councils, this is something that we have to make the tough call. And I’m willing to stand by my decisions. I do, having done the job, recognize the challenges and what’s involved.

[3:18:08] And I do think it warrants what has been put forward, especially with all the thoughtful insight the task force gave. They went out, they did their comparables. Again, to the mayor’s point, that having that outside body do that work was very important. And I looked at that, I looked at past councils. And I still come to the same decision, but I think that this warrants it. And I think future councils will probably have to be faced with the same decisions. London’s probably not gonna be half a million Londoners, you know, million, two million. However more people come to this city, it will evolve.

[3:18:44] It will change. And I think the responsibilities of this job will continue to evolve. But where we are right now, I’m trying to have that forward lens and look at the job as it stands and how it could be and weigh that in terms of what I think the job is worth. And so that’s how I’ve come to this decision. I’ll stick with my votes from committee. Any other speakers? Go ahead, Councillor Perly. Thank you. As you heard me some minutes ago, I did want to have additional information.

[3:19:18] I always think that having more resources and more information is always kind of, you can make the best decisions. You look at the pros, cons, pluses, minuses. Having said that, I will stand behind my decisions as well from the last meeting. I do want Londoners to have the opportunity to have the most potentially experienced individuals to run. I hope we are going to have 14 very competitive races, 14 individuals, 14 wards that the voters will be deciding among the best, really the best what it has to offer.

[3:19:58] So I will certainly, because I will stand behind the 70% percentile, I will, the other two, and especially because I’m standing behind this, I will not be supporting the chairs, the additional remuneration for the chairs, and as well as the stipend. If I look at the increase currently, what it is and what we are moving into, then I really, and I even have visited chairs, because if you look at this, there’s also a mission of the budget chair, Deputy Mayor, so it’s kind of a great area, and then deciding. So I will not certainly support the chairs, and the stipend either.

[3:20:32] And I think that’s actually all I have to say. Thank you. The speakers. I’m talking about a tough job, my son is texting me, asking if he goes to a friend’s house, and I’m like, I gotta get back to you in a few minutes. Any other speakers though? Then I think what we should do, if we’ve concluded the debate is, I think dividing it out generally along the lines, the Deputy Mayor Lewis said, although there were a couple of people who asked for some small changes to it, did you pick those up?

[3:21:05] I know the clerk did. Yes, so I did pick those up, your worship, and they are reflected now in E-Scribe, so in two, which would be the first one I’d put forward. Councillor Ferreira’s request to have L&M pulled, have been pulled, and they’ve been moved to a separate vote. A was already a separate vote, so I think we can still proceed in that manner. Again, I’m happy to read out each piece, the highlights, so people know what they’re voting on, and if there’s additional pieces, we can adjust as we go. But I think the way the clerks have it set up in E-Scribe, we can proceed to voting.

[3:21:44] And I would be prepared to put the first item on the floor. This is your vote to in E-Scribe. This would, this is the vote on the annual adjustment and compensation continuing to be automatic and administered by civic admin. Councillor’s compensation being maintained with the alignment between the mayor’s compensation being maintained, an alignment between council and mayor based compensation be reviewed in the next resourcing review scheduled to place in four years. Expectations that councilor’s role constitutes full-time service be clarified and reinforced through appropriate language and council documents, language of council procedures, by-law regarding councilor serving on standing committees be amended to promote balance between council representation.

[3:22:26] Expectation be established that councilor serve on a minimum of three agencies, boards and commissions and codified and council documents. The continuous learning model of councilor training be endorsed with supported resources for both new and returning council members, being required to attend post-election training and onboarding sessions, and that the relationship between councilor resourcing and the composition, which for folks clarity is perhaps the number of size of council be considered in the next ward boundary review process, as well as the being noted verbal delegation from a Mr. Horak chair of the committee.

[3:23:02] Okay, so that’s the piece before us. Everybody’s okay with that all together I think now. Councillor ramen, you want something different? Thank you, can you call C separately? Sure, well, we can remove that piece. C should now be out, so it’s everything else that’s left, so we’re gonna open that for voting.

[3:24:28] Close in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, the next vote is part a of the motion, be approved, this is the 70th percentile index. We’ll open that for voting. Close in the vote, motion carries nine to six.

[3:25:05] Next vote is part b of the motion be approved. Current annual adjustment formula in the renumeration be maintained. Okay, we’ll open that piece for voting. Vote for councilor, number four. It’s the annual adjustment formula, councilor. So McAllister, Councillor Trussell, closing the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

[3:26:01] Okay, the next vote is part d, and this is the council-based compensation annual adjustment formula be updated in 2027 to reflect the 2026 stats Canada census data for the CMA. Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Close in the vote, motion carries 10 to five.

[3:26:52] Sorry, our next vote is part f. Current practice of not providing additional compensation or stipends to boards, agencies, and commission service, be continued. Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Close in the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

[3:27:28] Okay, the next vote is part g, this is the compensation of standing committee chairs be implemented at a set rate of 4%. Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Close in the vote, motion fails seven to eight. Next vote is part h, this is the compensation of deputy mayor and budget chair be codified and that the rate be set at 8%.

[3:28:11] Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Close in the vote, motion carries 12 to three. Okay, the next vote is that this is the severance package of four weeks for counselors who are unsuccessful in re-election, okay, we’ll open that for voting.

[3:29:02] And I ask a quick question on this one. In regards to understanding of the wording. The votes already open and most people have voted. Would have been, only if it’s not understanding what we’re voting on, if it’s a question that helps you with your vote, that was part of the debate.

[3:29:53] All right, thank you, that would have been awkward ‘cause people are voting themselves. Close in the vote, motion fails seven to eight. Okay, next motion is parts l and m, this is the referral to the governance working group with respect to counselor, office staff support, complement and changes to expense accounts and hiring of contract assistance.

[3:30:30] Okay, we’re gonna open that for voting. Close in the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Okay, and final vote. You have to jump down to 13 in the East Cribe. This is part C, the annual adjustment compensation, be automatic and administered by Soviet admin. Okay, we’ll open that for voting.

[3:31:37] Sir Stevenson. This is the part C? Yes, counselor, this is the annual adjustment piece be done by civic admin. Counselor Stevenson votes no. Close in the vote, motion carries 13 to two. And that colleagues with sincere thanks to clerks for their great job in organizing all of this for us in one of those complicated series of votes completes the 13th report of SPPC.

[3:32:21] Okay, give me one second. Okay, that brings us to added reports. Councilor Frank is gonna give the report from closed session. Thank you, your council and closed session reports that one, that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager of finance supports with the concurrence of the director of construction and infrastructure services, on the advice of the director of Realty Services with respect to the property located at 580 Wellington Road, further described as part of block nine on plan 33M501, designated as part five on 33R2191.

[3:33:13] City of London, County of Middlesex, being part of pin 08471-0596, containing an area of approximately 812 meters squared or 8,736.42 square feet, fee simple, and 976 meters squared, 10,510 and 53 square feet, temporary easement, as shown on the location map, attached as appendix B for the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate for the Wellington Gateway project, the following actions be taken. A, the offer submitted to St. Joseph’s healthcare, London, the vendor, to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of $460,000 and grant a temporary easement for the sum of $120,000 for the term of two years with an option to extend the term up to two times, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement attached as appendix C be accepted, and B, the financing for this acquisition approved as set out in the source of financing report attached here to as appendix A.

[3:34:12] Two, that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports, with the concurrence of the director of construction infrastructure services, on the advice of the director of realty services, with respect to the property located at 303 Wellington Road, further described as part of lot 25, concessions two, designated as parts one, two, three, four, five, expropriation plan ER1639856 in the city of London, county of Middlesex, being all of pin 08363-0039, as shown on the location map and expropriation plan attached as appendix B.

[3:34:45] For the purpose of future road improvements to accommodate the Wellington Gateway Project, the following actions be taken. A, the settlement agreement as to compensation and possession from 16 Wellington Holdings Inc. to settle the outstanding expropriation compensation to the property owner for a total sum of 1.249 million in subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the settlement agreement attached as appendix C be accepted, and B, the financing for this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report attached here to as appendix A, that progress is made for respect to items 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6, as noted on the public agenda.

[3:35:26] Okay, and you’re presenting a report so you still get to stand. It’s like a committee report, any debate? Yeah, and there’s, we need to deal with both separately, so I’m gonna, we’re gonna say you’re putting the first one on the floor, in case anybody needs to declare any conflicts. Okay, so that one is on the floor. Thank you. Go ahead, Councillor Roman. Thank you, I’d like to declare a conflict on the first item as my spouse is it has an employment relationship with St. Joe’s. Okay, that’s noted, any discussion on the matter?

[3:36:08] Okay, then just on the first one, we’ll open that for voting. Closing, closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to one with one recusal, noting that Councillor Van Mirberg and I’s left the meeting. Okay, and now we’ll put the second one and the it being noted progress on all the other matters on the floor.

[3:36:42] Any discussion on that? I’ll just take one moment just to adjust the vote. Okay, we’re gonna open that now.

[3:37:44] Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to one. Okay, thank you for that report. Councillor Frank, thanks for doing that. There are no other added reports, deferred matters, or no deferred matters, inquiries. I received a request for one Councillor to make an inquiry. Councillor Stevenson, you’re online, you can make your inquiry now if you’d like. Thank you very much. It was just a quick question looking for an update on the 60 micro-modular shelter site, just wondering if we knew what agency might be the lead, and if we look like we’re still on time or anything that can be shared.

[3:38:26] Okay, I’ll go to the city manager on this one. Thank you for the question through you to the members of council. Yes, 21 days ago, I just counted it. You made a decision to help us move forward on this process, and we are continuing to work quite diligently in that regard. I can tell you that while a service provider has not yet been selected, there have been many discussions with service providers about the type of work and the type of services that are required, and that will continue, I guess, at this point in time. In terms of the other pieces, the capital pieces, there is a report coming back in the December CAHPS meeting will give you a better sense about where we’re at, but there has been a contract put in place for the 60 sleep cabins, and we expect delivery by the end of December, so the capital initiatives are coming forward.

[3:39:18] The site plan is being reviewed, and we’re looking to finalize that, and we’ve also received comments already from the ministry with respect to the location. So it continues, it’s a fast pace. We’ve got staff engaged in it on a daily basis, and we are looking forward to moving this forward, and we are looking forward also to reporting back to council as well. All right, thank you. Thanks, councilor for the inquiry. Any other inquiries? Okay, seeing none, then emergency motions, there are none that I’m aware of, okay, no.

[3:39:53] We’re on to bylaws. Okay, the way we’re gonna do bylaws is, we’re gonna do revised parkland dedication bylaw, that’s bill 389 first. Then we’re gonna do added bill 400, which is the Wellington Gateway piece that councilor ramen needed separate. Then we’re gonna do added bill 401, which is the other Wellington Gateway piece that didn’t have any conflicts associated with it. Then added bill 402, which is the ARU in term control bylaw.

[3:40:28] Then bill 398, which is 34 Adelaide street, and then everything else. Does that work for everybody? All right, is there anybody who likes to, who, a couple of people who support all of that make it really easy? All right, council, Deputy Mayor Lewis and councilor Cuddy, I’m gonna have you move in second, all of it, okay? But we’ll do it individually as we always do, so we’re gonna start with the parkland dedication bylaw, bill 389, we’ll open first reading for voting.

[3:41:14] Opposed in the vote motion carries 14 to zero. And second reading of this bylaw, same over and seconder is there any debate on this? Seeing none, we’ll open second reading for voting. Opposed in the vote motion carries 14 to zero. And third reading, same over and seconder of the same bill, we’ll open that for voting. Motion carries 14 to zero.

[3:41:57] Next is the added bill 400 from the report councilor Frank gave, this is the one that councilor ramen requested to be separate, that’s about the Wellington Gateway. The 580 Wellington Road piece, we’ll open first reading for voting. And carries 12 to one with one recusal. All right, second reading of the same bill, any discussion?

[3:42:33] Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote motion carries 13 to one. Yes, councilor ramen.

[3:43:08] I just wanna double check that I abstained from that vote. Sorry, would I be able to reconsider? Okay, I need someone, well, anybody who wasn’t against it to reconsider that third reading, because councilor ramen wanted to abstain. Deputy Mayor Lewis, councilor Trostow’s willing to second. So this is for reconsideration of the third reading of that bill, we’re gonna open, sorry, second reading of that bill.

[3:43:48] Just take a second to open the reconsideration. Okay, reconsideration is up and we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote motion carries 14-0.

[3:44:34] It’ll just take a second to reload the second reading vote. But since we’re reconsidering it, we get to ask if anybody wants to speak again. We’ll open it momentarily. Yeah, that should be open.

[3:45:21] Opposed in the vote motion carries 12 to one with one recusal. And third and final reading of bill 400, we will open that for voting, same mover and second reading. And carries 12 to one with one recusal. Okay, next bill we’re gonna deal with is bill 401.

[3:45:59] This is another Wellington gateway item. This is 303 Wellington Road piece. So we’ll open that with first reading with the same over and seconder for as before, go ahead. Councillor Stevenson, Councilor Preble. Opposed in the vote motion carries 13-1.

[3:46:38] Second reading of the same bill, bill 401. Any discussion on this? Seeing none, so with the same over and seconder, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Stevenson. I vote no.

[3:47:12] Motion carries 13-1. Okay, third and final reading of bill 401, we’ll open that for voting. And carries 13-1. Okay, next is the added bill 402, which is the ARU in term control by-law.

[3:47:45] We’ll use the same over and seconder and we’ll open that for voting. And carries 13-1. And second reading of this by-law. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll open second reading for voting. And carries 13-1.

[3:48:28] Reading of the same by-law. Let’s see, ARU in term control by-law, same over and seconder, we’ll open that for voting. And carries 13-1. All right, now bill 398, this is 34 Adelaide. We have the same over and seconder for first reading and we’ll open for first reading for voting.

[3:49:20] Mr. Stevenson. Oh, G7, a little trouble here, I vote yes. No, thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries 12-2. Okay, second reading of bill 398, any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Present the vote, motion carries 12-2.

[3:49:55] Bill 398, same over and seconder, we’ll open that for voting. Carries 12-2. Okay, and now everything else from the agenda that isn’t those items we already voted on. We’ll have the same over and seconder and we’ll open first reading for voting. And carries 14-0.

[3:50:51] Second reading of all of these bills together, any discussion on any of them? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Motion carries 14-0. And final reading of these bills, same over and seconder, we’ll open that for voting. Motion carries 14-0.

[3:51:34] Okay, with that, that completes the by-laws, which means the only thing we have left is the motion to adjourn on. Councillor Frara moved, seconder. Just a point of personal privilege. A point of personal privilege, sure. I began the meeting with a recognition to our staff for the work that they were doing at the LCC. I just want to share with the public and draw to Council’s attention, staff will be putting out a media advisory in the next few minutes, letting folks know that the pool will be reopened tomorrow. Well done, team. And it’s apparently 84 degrees, according to Ms. Smith, so a lovely temperature for her dip.

[3:52:11] Well, I know how much she likes swimming, but that’s not really a point of personal privilege, but good job sneaking that in. Motion to adjourn is moved by Councillor Frara, seconded by Councillor McAllister, all those in favor of adjournment? As she opposed. Motion carries.