January 13, 2026, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:01 PM; it being noted that Councillors J. Pribil and E. Peloza were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

2.1   Mayoral Direction 2024-001 – City-Owned Parking Lot Redevelopment 199 Ridout Street North and 84 Horton Street East

2026-01-13 Staff Report - Mayoral Direction 2024-001, City Owned Parking Lot

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Mayoral Direction 2024-001, the City-owned Parking Lot Redevelopment update relating to 199 Ridout Street and 84 Horton Street:

a)    on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, with respect to the Mayoral Direction 2024-001, the City-owned Parking Lot Redevelopment update relating to 199 Ridout Street and 84 Horton Street provided in the report BE RECEIVED; and

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take no further action on a procurement process to solicit development proposals from qualified firms that can redevelop City-owned parking lots for high-density housing, encouraging modular construction techniques, and public parking at the following locations: 

i)    84 Horton Street; and 

ii)   199 Ridout Street

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, pursuant to section 27.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, a change in order of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee Agenda BE APPROVED, to provide for Item 6.1 in Stage 6, Confidential, to be considered before Stage 2, Consent.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Stevenson

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take no further action on a procurement process to solicit development proposals from qualified firms that can redevelop City-owned parking lots for high-density housing, encouraging modular construction techniques, and public parking at the following locations: 

i)    84 Horton Street; and 

ii)   199 Ridout Street;

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Mayoral Direction 2024-001, the City-owned Parking Lot Redevelopment update relating to 199 Ridout Street and 84 Horton Street:

a)    on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, with respect to the Mayoral Direction 2024-001, the City-owned Parking Lot Redevelopment update relating to 199 Ridout Street and 84 Horton Street provided in the report BE RECEIVED; and

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Draft Economic Development Strategy Framework – Presentation

2026-01-13 Staff Report - Draft Economic Development Strategy

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Draft Economic Development Strategy Framework:

a) on the recommendation of the City Manager, the report regarding the Draft Economic Development Strategy Framework, including the “City of London: Economic Development Strategy” presentation BE RECEIVED; and

b) the communication dated January 11, 2026 from Councillor D. Ferreira with the following considerations BE REFERRED to Civic Administration and Deloitte Canada to incorporate the following considerations into the next phase of the Draft Economic Development Strategy Framework:

  • to include downtown revitalization as a dedicated strategic pillar and to ensure the downtown revitalization pillar is fully integrated with the forthcoming Downtown Plan, including consistency in priorities, sequencing, and implementation;

  • to include activating Core Area as an economic and cultural driver within the second pillar; and

  • to allow additional time for targeted stakeholder consultation, including downtown revitalization, cultural, business, and Indigenous partners, prior to returning a finalized strategy to Council.

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard verbal presentations from R. Taylor, Manager, Economic Advisory Deloitte Canada and G. Henderson, CEO, London Chamber of Commerce;

it being further noted that the communications as appended to the Added Agenda from G. Henderson, CEO, London Chamber of Commerce, D. Brown and W. Thomas, Coordinators, Midtown Community Organization and Councillor D. Ferreira with respect to this matter, were received.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the delegation request from G. Henderson, CEO, London Chamber of Commerce BE APPROVED to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Draft Economic Development Strategy Framework:

a) on the recommendation of the City Manager, the report regarding the Draft Economic Development Strategy Framework, including the “City of London: Economic Development Strategy” presentation BE RECEIVED;

b) the Draft Economic Development Strategy BE AMENDED to include downtown revitalization as a dedicated strategic pillar and to ensure the downtown revitalization pillar is fully integrated with the forthcoming Downtown Plan, including consistency in priorities, sequencing, and implementation;

c) the second pillar Investment Attraction and Retention BE AMENDED in the second bullet point to read “activate Core Area as an economic and cultural driver”; and

d) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to allow additional time for targeted stakeholder consultation, including downtown revitalization, cultural, business, and Indigenous partners, prior to returning a finalized strategy to Council.

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the communication dated January 11, 2026 from Councillor D. Ferreira with the following considerations BE REFERRED to Civic Administration and Deloitte Canada to incorporate the following considerations into the next phase of the Draft Economic Development Strategy Framework:

  • to include downtown revitalization as a dedicated strategic pillar and to ensure the downtown revitalization pillar is fully integrated with the forthcoming Downtown Plan, including consistency in priorities, sequencing, and implementation;

  • to include activating Core Area as an economic and cultural driver within the second pillar; and

  • to allow additional time for targeted stakeholder consultation, including downtown revitalization, cultural, business, and Indigenous partners, prior to returning a finalized strategy to Council.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the report regarding the Draft Economic Development Strategy Framework, including the “City of London: Economic Development Strategy” presentation BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard verbal presentations from R. Taylor, Manager, Economic Advisory Deloitte Canada and G. Henderson, CEO, London Chamber of Commerce;

it being further noted that the communications as appended to the Added Agenda from G. Henderson, CEO, London Chamber of Commerce, D. Brown and W. Thomas, Coordinators, Midtown Community Organization and Councillor D. Ferreira with respect to this matter, were received.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee recess at this time, for 10 minutes.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

The Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee recesses at 4:38 PM and reconvenes at 4:50 PM.

4.2   Request for an Amendment to the London Transit Commission Board Member Composition

2026-01-13 Submission - (4.2) LTC

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Franke

That the following actions be taken with respect to the London Transit Commission:

a) the communication dated November 16, 2025 from S. Franke, Chair, London Transit Commission BE RECEIVED;

b) the resignation of E. Peloza, London Transit Commission BE ACCEPTED; and

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward to the Municipal Council meeting on January 20, 2026, a by-law with the necessary amendments to By-law No. A.-6377-206, as amended, to provide that the London Transit Commission shall consist of five (5) members of Council.

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the communication dated November 16, 2025 from S. Franke, Chair, London Transit Commission BE REFERRED to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on February 24, 2026 to allow Council Members to consider serving on the London Transit Commission to fill the existing vacancy;

Motion Failed (5 to 10)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential (Provided to Members only.)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee convenes In Closed session to consider the following:

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending disposition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers or employees of the Corporation; and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

The Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee convenes In Closed Session from 1:04 PM to 2:41 PM.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 5:58 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (3 hours, 34 minutes)

I am going to call the second meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to order, and we will begin by acknowledging that the City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Shoni, and Lenny Paywalk and Adawander and Peoples. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The City of London today is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit people. And as representatives of the people of the City of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory.

The City of London is also committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meeting upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact sppc@london.ca or phone 519-661-2489-2425. Colleagues, I’m going to begin by looking for any disclosures of pecanary interest. Seeing none, then we will move on to the consent items.

I’m going to look to Mayor Morgan for a change of order. Yes, I’d like to make a change of order to do the in-camera session for the meeting at the top of the meeting. As it relates to the public item on consent. One of the reasons, yes.

I believe the clerk has that in eScribe. She does, seconded by Councillor Layman. So we will call the vote on that unless colleagues have comments that they want to raise with regards to changing the order. Seeing none, we’ll ask the clerk to open the vote.

It’s a little scribble, votes yes. Using the vote, motion carries 15-0. So with that change, I then need to look for a motion to move into confidential session. Moved by Councillor Roman and seconded by Councillor Hopkins.

And we will ask the clerk to open the vote on that. So a scribble, votes yes. Housing the vote, motion carries 15-0. Thank you, colleagues.

So for members of the public, we’re going to, in the media, we’re going to ask you to leave for us. Staff who are not related to the confidential matter will leave and wait for us. We will dispense with this, and then we will return to public session. Mr.

Chair, does Councillor Pribble and I stay on this link, or is another Zoom link we’ll have to log into? You stay on this link, Councillor. Okay, well, we do have quorum, so I am going to call the meeting back to order. We would be moving into the consent agenda now.

Councillor Roman, you wanted 2.1 pulled. Okay, so pulling 2.1 moves it to be dealt with as a deferred matter after we’ve done items for direction. So that brings us to item 4.1, which is the draft economic development strategy framework presentation. We also have a request for delegation status from Mr.

Henderson and a request for delegation from Ms. Taylor from Deloitte. So I’m going to look to see if we can get a mover and a seconder to approve both delegations moved by Councillor Cady and seconded by Councillor Stevenson. And I will ask the clerk to open the vote on the delegations.

Councillor Preble, Councillor Van Merebergen. Okay, so that approves the delegations, but before we move to the delegations, we do have the staff presentation on item 4.1. So I will ask Mr. Fowler to proceed with the presentation when we’re ready.

Thank you, Chair, and through you, it’s my pleasure today to introduce Ms. Rebecca Taylor. Rebecca Taylor, who is a manager in Deloitte’s economic strategy and impact division. She is here today to present the draft framework and present options for the proposed vision, mission principles, pillars, and strategies for the forthcoming economic development strategy.

This session today is a key touch point before the full build out of the implementation plan and measurement framework, which is scheduled to come back to Council in March. So we’ll be taking back all of the discussion and commentary from today’s conversation and using that to refine the plan and to move forward with the development of the full implementation plan. And with that, I would like to welcome Ms. Taylor to provide a presentation.

Ms. Taylor. Thank you so much. Good afternoon.

Chair, your worship members of Council. Thank you for the introduction, Trevor. Mr. Becca, I’m a manager with Deloitte’s economic strategy and impact team.

I’m really pleased to present this draft framework for London’s economic development strategy today. And as Mr. Fowler said, today’s objective is to align on a strategic framework. So it’s the guiding principles, the vision, the mission, and the strategic priorities.

And these are the foundational elements that we just want to make sure are in place as our team develops and builds out the full strategy for your review in March. Before we get into the proposed framework elements, let’s briefly review the work that has been done to inform the development so far. I wanted to ensure, and I know Council is committed to ensuring that the framework and that the strategy reflects the diverse perspectives and experiences of London’s residents, businesses, and community partners. And so we developed an equitable and inclusive engagement plan with guidance from the city of London’s economic advisory panel.

To understand London’s economic context, we reviewed over 30 of the city’s strategies and reports. We analyzed economic and workforce data, and we prepared four discussion papers. We held nine roundtable sessions gathering input from more than 120 businesses and organizations. So local economic development is certainly a team effort, and many partners contribute to investment attraction, workforce development, business support, and other functions that support economic growth and resilience.

You’ll see here this overview of local economic development identifies sort of the eight key areas of economic development. And so we surveyed 47 economic development organizations across London so that we could map the service offerings and identify strengths and gaps and opportunities and understand how they all measure and track and measure progress. And we also conducted a network analysis to understand how closely they collaborate and connect. And so what you see on the screen now is a network visualization, and that shows that London’s network of economic development service providers is very closely connected.

Although we do see some possible duplication or missed opportunities due to limited collaboration in the area of workforce development organizations. We’re going to provide a lot more detail about this visualization in the full report. So, so if you have questions about that, don’t worry. A lot more information is coming on that.

And there will also be some recommendations for optimizing service delivery, both within city, the city’s funded partners, as well as across the ecosystem. And through this engagement, several themes did emerge. The first was that the city want city businesses and organizations really want to foster economic growth and inclusion by removing barriers and supporting diverse entrepreneurs. Secondly, coordinating services as a team London to simplify business support and attract investment.

Third, leverage London’s strengths in education, health and creative sectors to drive innovation and provide quality opportunities. Fourth, build vibrant neighborhoods and modern infrastructure to attract talent and capital. And finally embed climate action and fiscal responsibility and ensure transparent measurement of progress. And these are the shared aspirations that are reflected in the proposed strategic framework.

So as I present the proposed framework, I’d like to emphasize that these are foundational elements for the strategy and not the full strategy. And they’re not the strategies, the economic development strategy. It’s not a strategy for the city in general, and it’s not the strategy for LEDC. So it’s, it’s a city wide economic development strategy.

And after I present the four components of the proposed framework, love to hear feedback and suggestions, that’s why we’re here today. We want to hear what your thoughts are about these proposed elements. So let’s start with guiding principles. These are the values that shape how London approaches economic development.

And they act as a lens for choices. So these five proposed principles can ensure that every action that’s taken under the strategy is consistent with a long term vision for inclusive growth, innovation and sustainability. When we move to the vision statement, we have a couple of options we’d like to hear your thoughts on today. The first option reflects London’s aspiration to be a city where ideas, creativity, innovation and talents gain momentum.

While the second option resonates with London’s identity as a magnetic city for talent and investment, and it reflects ambitions for downtown revitalization, cultural vibrancy and a dynamic quality of life that attracts and retains people. When we think about a mission statement, it’s, it’s what serves as the clear guide for decisions, actions and collaboration. And so for London, the mission will explain how the city and its ecosystem partners will work together to create the conditions for inclusive growth to attract investment and to support businesses and talent. Option A reflects London’s shared ambition to leverage its sectoral strengths and cultural assets to build a future ready economy.

While option B reflects London’s vision of being a launch pad for innovation and opportunity. Moving to the five pillars and some strategies under age. The five pillars that we’re presenting here are outlined in some proposed areas of focus and strategies that will shape a vibrant competitive and inclusive economy for London. When we look at the talent in an innovation pillar, that focuses on uniting employers, educators and partners to build a skilled, diverse and innovative workforce.

London’s leading sectors, as you know, will need 40,000 new hires from 2023 to 2021. Just in those leading sectors alone. So when we’re looking at the overall net growth over the past, you know, five, ten years, we see that more than 75% of that growth was in those key leading sectors. We’re expecting a lot more growth.

Investment attraction and retention. It relates to creating a seamless investor friendly environment through sector specific attraction strategies in shovel ready land and leveraging cultural assets. The regional collaboration pillar emphasizes building stronger partnerships with neighboring municipalities, first nations and industry partners to unify investment attraction, strengthening local supply chains. Infrastructure advocacy and workforce development activities.

So these are all things that really function well when you collaborate regionally. Looking to transportation and access. That’s a pillar that’s aimed at transforming air road and rail connectivity for a fully integrated and future ready network. And there are some exciting potential initiatives that can fall under that pillar.

And finally system optimization. This is focused on enhancing governance and optimizing your investment, public investment in internal as well as partner delivered economic development initiatives. So that’s the framework right now. Thank you for the opportunity to present these for consideration and discussion.

And so through the chair, I’m happy to answer questions and provide further information as needed. And we also have a couple of thought starter questions too. Thank you, Miss Taylor. So we’ll let you if you want to take a break and have a seat for a moment.

We’re going to keep you nearby to answer questions. We’re going to go to our delegation by Mr Henderson from the Chamber of Commerce. We’ll give him his five minutes and then we will open the floor for discussion amongst colleagues. So we’ll just keep you on standby for a few moments.

Welcome, Mr Henderson. I know you have delegated to us before, so I know you know the the spiel you’ve got five minutes. I’ll give you a wave with about 30 seconds left to go. Looks like you’re setting your own timer up there to keep as well.

So well, I came in at four minutes and 59 seconds last time chair. So I’ve got a I’ve got a mission. I’m not going to add the extra second to you this time. You’ve got to stay within your five minutes.

Okay. So when you’re ready, go ahead. Chair, members of the SPPC colleagues, thank you for the opportunity to speak. You have my submission and that’s what I will be speaking to today.

The London Chamber of Commerce supports council receiving Deloitte’s draft economic development strategy as a very important step forward. From the business community’s vantage point, the this is a credible starting point and it reflects several priorities that we consistently hear, including talent attraction and retention, including system performance and predictability and the importance of place and infrastructure in shaping investment decisions. Once the central question before council is whether the final strategy will be structured to produce measurable outcomes, particularly as the city advances a downtown plan in parallel. If those two pieces are not aligned, we risk setting our own teams and partners up to operate at cross purposes.

And this brings me to our first core point. One needs to be elevated to pillar status. The draft is organized around five pillars and that architecture matters because it signals priorities, resource allocation and what success will be judged against. The draft correctly links downtown vitality to talent retention, perceptions of safety, vacancy and investment decisions, yet currently it’s treated as a sub component rather than a pillar.

Even while, in our view, the consultation repeatedly identified downtown evolution as the clearest area of consensus. If we are serious about downtown outcomes over the next several years, a downtown pillar is not just symbolic. It creates clarity of ownership, measurable outcomes, sequencing and alignment with the downtown plan. That’s why the chamber is asking that the downtown evolution be elevated to one of the five pillars explicitly aligned with the downtown plan with clear ownership, deliverables and measurable outcomes.

Second, we should be realistic about the importance of regional collaboration. It matters. And we are not diminishing that. The question is structural, whether regional collaboration is best advanced as a standalone pillar or as a cross cutting initiative with actions embedded across all pillars.

And our position is clear advanced reasonable collaboration across the strategy, but do not let it displace a pillar level focus on downtown delivery. Third, and this is the point that often gets skipped because it’s less flashy, governance will make or break implementation. The graph acknowledges the problem, businesses experience, navigation challenges and ambiguity caused by multiple organizations with overlapping and adjacent mandates. In plain language, economic development is currently parceled out among many organizations and in practice that can feel duplicative, slow and at times very complicated.

If the final strategy is to be judged on outcomes, it needs to have an operating model that moves beyond coordination language and sets out who is accountable for what across city teams and funded partners. It also needs measurable service standards and transparent reporting. So council and the public can see whether system performance is actually improving. Councilor Ferreira’s letter captures the direction Council can give today, receive the draft, but ask staff and Deloitte to report back after additional targeted consultation with a revised approach that reflects council’s feedback, our input, as among other things.

It would add downtown evolution as a core pillar, align explicitly with the downtown plan and treat regional collaboration as cross cutting priority across all pillars. Most importantly, it puts governance on the table by calling for clarified implementation, accountability across city teams and partner economic developments, organizations, so responsibilities are clear and duplication is reduced. In closing, chair and members, the chamber is ready to participate constructively in that work. Thank you.

Mr Henderson, and an improved time of 443 on my counter counter so well done. Okay, so we have received our presentation from our staff and consultant. We have received our delegation. We have two communications that we will include as receipt.

It’s part of the overall direction that we take today. So the clerk will embed that. We did have fairly lengthy presentation from his tailor. So we look for a motion to frame the discussion going forward.

Before we do that, similar to how we proceed sometimes at planning and see if there’s any technical questions technical only questions that colleagues have for our consultant before we move forward. Mayor Morgan. Yes, I have a technical question might be a bit of a process question. So I welcome some thoughts from the consultant, our staff or the chair on this seems to me within the slide deck.

You’ve got a couple of options. And there’s a couple of paths we could go down today. We could start having motions and picking options and locking them in. Your questions, though, seem designed more around.

You want to hear some feedback from the group, say through the debate, we share our thoughts, then you’re going to go refine things and bring it back. I know the chamber as presented and counselors written a letter. And I’m wondering if you perceived this meaning to be we share some thoughts, you go back, you develop a draft, we’re going to make a bunch of changes then. Or if you’re looking for us to make a bunch of motions now, share some thoughts, pick options for mission and vision and do that today.

Because I think that those are two very different paths and I want to just understand this point of the check in and what the expectations of counselor at this time, because, well, I’ll have to answer that and then I might have a follow up. So, thanks, Miss Taylor. Thank you. And through the chair, the first one.

So our objective today is to have a conversation, not land on any solid decisions that that’s for the future. This is a check in. In our experience, it’s been really important when we work with communities and developing economic development strategies to not flesh out a whole strategy and bring it to council. It’s been really more a lot more effective if we can align on those focus areas and build out around that.

And so today we were just hoping for thoughts, impressions, input from SBPC and to take that back to our team and make those refinements, the delegation from Mr Henderson. Great love to hear that input. That’s, that’s what we do. We gather input wing and through this consultation process, we gathered input from more than 200 people.

We want to feed it back and ground truth it and say, okay, this is what we heard. These are the pillars that emerged from what we heard. And, you know, what are your thoughts? Does that, does that sound right to you?

Mayor Morgan. Right. Oh, I don’t know if our staff have anything data. I would hear it.

I don’t have any other questions that everything else would be debate and discussion for me. I’m seeing Mr Fowler shaking his head. No. So we’re going to go to Councillor Hopkins with a question.

Yeah. So on a technical question, only through you, Mr chair. Thank you very much for the presentation. Governance.

Where does it sit right now in this framework? Ms Taylor. Thank you and through the chair. So the implementation framework that will be part of the full strategy will include actions, tactics, timelines and governance.

So we’ll be providing options for system optimization, as well as for how council might look at setting policy, determining funding models for funded partners. What kind of measures you’re looking for for reporting back and tracking progress. So, yeah, that would be part of the implementation framework that’s in the fuller strategy. Councillor Hopkins, you’re good.

Councillor Ferrera. Technical questions here. I guess technical questions for me, and I do have a motion I want to put forward that I did circulate. What does pillar status mean and how does, how does a pillar get created?

Ms Taylor. Thank you through the chair. So the pillars could be thought of as focus areas. They’re the priority areas that would have the that they stand to offer the greatest impact for the economy across the city.

So city wide. This is a city wide economic development strategy. So we’re looking at the areas that would apply everywhere. So not just to one sector, not just to one neighborhood, but across the city.

And these are the. When we think of strategy, it’s all about making choices, right? So it’s making choices to do some things and to really focus your efforts, your money, your pop everything around those things. And that doesn’t mean that the other things are not important.

What it means is that these are the items that will stand to have the most impact. The other consideration with determining these strategic pillars is are they strategic. So in the sense that would you not, could not doing that also be a feasible alternative. And so there are some things in managing a city that would never be a strategic pillar because it’s foundational to running the city.

And so these are the items that would go above and beyond. They differentiate London and their strategic. They really have the opportunity and make an impact. Differentiate the city.

Thank you, Miss Taylor. Any other technical questions? We’re not looking for motions yet. Council.

I know you have another technical question. Okay. Sorry. And because you said I have a question, then I have a motion, but I want to get through the technical questions first.

Just a question for you. Does this count towards my time? I’m allowing the technical questions within five minutes, but not within the five minutes of speaking time that you have to any motion. Follow up to that.

Thank you for that, for that answer. Would amending a pillar status mean a comprehensive strategy or would amending a pillar status mean direction or a direction to help with development of a comprehensive strategy? So as a pillar status amendment today, would that mean a comprehensive strategy? Council, I feel like this question is getting into debate on your motion.

I just want to know, I’m going to let Miss Taylor respond, but we’re not going to ask her to start debating. You are motion with us. So we just have to be careful in terms of where we draw that line. So Miss Taylor, if you can respond to that.

Thank you and through the chair. Really, we’d like this conversation to this session today, our presentation and your feedback to be conversational. So no hard decisions need to be made today, unless that’s, you know, the committee’s wish. We are open to making shifts.

I think that coming to those hard and fast, you know, decisions, what should be a pillar, what should not be a pillar, what should go across everything. We could spend a half day into a workshop on that, but I can tell you that the pillars that emerged came as a result of our deep analysis of London’s current and emerging opportunities, challenges, strengths. Global things that are having an impact on London now and in the near future and consultation. So these are the things that emerged as the most salient opportunities and focus areas across sectors, across organizations, across the city.

Is there any other technical questions? I do. Thank you, Miss Taylor. So I guess a follow up question.

I did hear economic engines and drivers could be considered pillars. I see downtown as a pillar to that. I just wanted to know if you have pillar status, that is more, and I shouldn’t lead into the question. Let me ask it a different way.

If we have pillar status, would that be more likely to see a material result for anything that is considered a pillar materially speaking, if we saw in a multi your budget update or a business case at council in a future. Council does the pillar status mean a material result in the end. Miss Taylor. Thank you.

And through the chair, it’s our expectation that absolutely everything in this strategy will have a material result. That we will not put anything in the strategy with which London doesn’t have internal enabling capabilities or that the external conditions wouldn’t make possible. Our goal is to create a strategy that is actionable that you’ll be able to implement. So whether something is labeled as a label or whether it lives as an initiative or labeled as a pillar or whether it lives as an initiative underneath a pillar.

It all works together. And so it needs to be cross cutting. So, for example, downtown initiatives will see them across all pillars in the strategy. Downtown, like in every city is a significant economic driver.

However, elevating something to a pillar status if you to phrase it that way would be done if if the city wanted to signal significant economic investment or some other significant attention to that area that would have city wide economic impact. So, you know, you have your downtown plan that’s being developed. This strategy works in partnership with that downtown plan. But if if downtown is going to be a pillar, then that’s a signal that over the next few years council is committed to making a significant contribution to downtown development strategically in other cities that has been significant.

The importance of a downtown as an example is that it does enable economic development through talent attraction and retention, for example, through direct investment. And that’s why that’s why you have a downtown plan and downtown strategy. The larger economic development strategy is a step up from that. So it’s a step up from the policies that you would put into a downtown plan.

The investments that you would put into place making and wayfinding. These would be a higher level of more significant commitment. So, I hope that answers the question. Thank you.

Councilor. That’s it. Thank you. My hat’s off to you.

Miss Taylor. Thank you. Councilor Roman. Thank you and through you and of a technical nature at this point.

I’m just wondering the public research reports available in the get involved site, the building our economy together the research and insight briefings. To me, that’s the crux of the work that’s been done to lay the groundwork and the foundation for what’s before us today. But where I struggle a little bit and wondering where we will see this and how we will discuss it is it’s to me not really in the what’s here today. It’s you took those things you use them to create what’s here today, but those pieces are so significant to the work that we’re talking about that without flavoring the document with those pieces of the pestle analysis and the source analysis.

It’s actually kind of difficult to tie in why those things are being recommended and why they’re being put forward. So, and from a future focus perspective, it’s difficult to assess through those two documents. What Deloitte then sees as those those next pieces and I understand those are coming, but I feel like I’m getting the executive summary without getting a chance to really go into the detail on the nitty gritty about this in those two reports. So that my technical question is where does that happen?

Is that here? Is that the expectation for today or is that in a future meeting? Miss Taylor. Thank you so much through the chair.

Thank you for that question and really to underline that this is this is just a checkpoint and that yes, all of that will be included for your review. When we bring the strategy forward in March doesn’t make sense for us to bring the whole thing without without checking in on these strategic priorities and the vision and the mission. So the things that are foundational to the overall strategy, we want to make sure we’ve got those right. And then we flesh it out.

So yes, we’ll be referencing back to the research when we identify the when we describe the strategic initiatives and more detail when we identify actions and tactics that can be taken will include the why that came behind it and you know why that fueled. So we appreciate that you’ve correctly identified that those two reports fed into the identification of the vision, the mission, the guiding principles and the strategic priorities. And we’re just we’re just looking for a checkpoint right now. Thank you.

I appreciate that from a technical perspective for me. I want to get into what’s in front of those two reports in order to further work with my colleagues on getting to those principles and making sure that we have it right. And so I understand where you are in the consultation. My hope is that in there’s an opportunity for counsel to have a second opportunity to consult based on what’s in those two research documents.

So I don’t know if that’s it’s designed that way from what I see in the completed work. It doesn’t look like that is so, but I just want to clarify that that’s part of the next part of the process. Ms Taylor. Yeah.

Thank you. Through the chair. Yes. In March, you’ll be given an opportunity.

Staff may provide to this committee sometime between now and then an interim report on how it’s going. But certainly in March, that will be a draft strategy that will be brought forward. Thanks. Are you good?

Thank you. I’ll save it for a debate. Thanks. Thank you to the chair.

My only question that might be technical and not not my argument that I’ll present later on the motion is to what to what extent has there been discussion collaboration with the consultants of the other parallel process that’s moving forward. You do refer to them. Well, the staff does refer to them in the staff report, but it’s not clear to me the extent to which at this level. And I know this is just to check in and we’ll get another report.

But at this time, what has been the level of that cross discussion? Ms Taylor. Thank you. Through the chair.

We have we connected with CUI at the very beginning of the process to align our engagement strategies. And so we wanted to make sure that we weren’t duplicating working against one another, et cetera. Clearly, their focus is central to the downtown area. So their engagement approach was quite different than ours.

We’ve checked in with them both virtually like through meetings virtual meetings as well as through email two or three times throughout the process, looking as they have draft materials and we have draft materials we’re sharing. And, you know, those those processes are happening in lockstep with one another. And so we are checking in with one another, making sure that there is alignment between the two strategies. Although, as as I mentioned earlier, this is a city wide economic development strategy.

So the downtown strategy is going to be super duper focused on the downtown, whereas as the economic development strategy is going to have a higher level view. So, yes, we are checking in regularly. I think we have a check in coming up in the near future as well. Council, are you good?

Okay. Unless there’s any other tech Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. You had mentioned that this was not for LEDC.

Could you just share with us who it is for Ms. Taylor. Yes. Thank you.

And through the chair. So LEDC has its own strategic plan as an organization, you know, has their own board and their own, you know, governance structure. They have their own strategic plan. They’ve set priorities.

They’ve identified set key sectors of priority. Deloitte was commissioned to develop an economic development strategy for the city of London. It is our hope that LEDC and other partners, both city funded and otherwise in that ecosystem of 47 economic development service providers will appreciate having a unified direction in which they can can go. But we wanted to clarify at the beginning that this is, first of all, not the city’s strategic plan.

You have a strategic plan. This is just an economic development strategy lives in a different spot, but also to clarify that we didn’t develop this strategy on behalf of LEDC. Councillor. Okay.

Any other questions of a technical nature? Seeing none, then Councillor Ferrer, you had an added on the agenda that you wanted to put a motion forward. So I’ll go to you now. Thank you, Chair.

I will put that motion forward. I can read it for committee. If you’d like just by direction from you, Chair. Yeah.

If you want to read it, the clerk does have it in e-scribe, but just read it out. Just a second. I’m waiting for it. Okay.

Councillor Hill here has helped. So I’m just going to read it off of his iPad. So I’m bringing forward a motion with the following actions be taken with respect to the draft economic development strategy framework. A, on the recommendation of the city manager, the report regarding the draft economic development strategy framework, including the city of London economic development strategy presentation be received.

B, the draft economic development strategy be amended to include downtown revitalization as a dedicated strategic pillar and to ensure the downtown revitalization pillar is fully integrated with the forthcoming downtown plan, including consistency and priorities, sequencing and implementation. C, the second pillar investment attraction and retention be amended in the second bullet point to read activate core area as an economic and cultural driver and the Pacific administration be directed to allow additional time for targeted stakeholder consultation, including downtown revitalization, cultural business and indigenous partners prior to returning to a finalized strategy to council. So I’ll put that on the floor. Okay.

So that’s been moved to their seconder. So moved by Councillor Ferrera, seconded by Councillor Trussow. Now, the motion on the floor, we will engage in debate. Now we are on our five minutes, folks, on the, there’s no, it’s, it’s the whole motion as amended.

So there’s not the original staff motion. It’s, it’s an alternate motion that Councillor Ferrera has put forward and that’s been seconded. So we’re just debating that right now. There are four clauses.

Colleagues can absolutely, by the way, request to have them voted on separately. There’s pieces they like. There’s pieces they don’t like right now. We’re debating the whole thing.

Thank you, Chair. Appreciate committee hearing my motion. And I just, just listen here. I’m going to take too much time because I want to have some rebuttal potential rebuttals coming up.

So the reason I have the downtown as a strategic pillar is because it’s central to our economic health of the city. It drives business confidence that shapes investment decisions and it plays a key role in retaining and attracting talent and investment citywide. We saw a large stakeholder consensus with Deloitte, which showed clear consensus that the downtown is foundational to London’s economic health performance and competitiveness. So in other words, business and community leaders are saying the same thing.

It’s not just my word for it. Aligning with the downtown plan is my biggest aspect here because making downtown a pillar to the economic development strategy, we ensure these two efforts are fully coordinated as we heard in our delegation. It also lifts downtown and signals to the city at large and the region at large, as Ms Taylor said, of what our intention is for downtown. It’s basically something that will avoid silos and it will make sure that we have conflicting directions just avoided completely.

I want to keep both plans moving in the same direction. When it comes to accountability and delivery, it creates real accountability. It ensures funding, material funding as what I was asking in my technical question. And it sets measurable outcomes.

I see the items in downtown revitalization as not just mentioned in policy by raising it to a pillar status, but it’s something that we would actively deliver and materialize. And I would say this, a downtown, strong downtown benefits the entire city. It’s the face of our city. It is the cultural driver at the core of our city.

It’s the heart of our city. And I’ve said this before, but we invest in downtown downtown invest in the city at large. It has community benefits for the entire city. It will reduce property taxes if we invest in downtown.

So it’s not only something that people see us from outside of London. It’s something that will benefit within London, regardless if you visit downtown or not. And I would say visit downtown because downtown is a great place to be and it will be even better. I would like to align downtown position it in a way that will leverage and lift it to where it should be.

And I want to orient downtown in the right direction of where it can be. So putting it as a pillar is very instrumental here because it will ensure that our council and the future councils, when it comes to any type of material funding or benefits will put us in the right place so we can invest properly in our downtown. When it comes to the core area parts, we do see that ensuring the connecting and the great assets that we see within the core area make up which make up downtown which make up midtown which make up all these village is something that also leads up to downtown. And I think making a cohesive and coordinated connection there is why I have the second pillar change is also instrumental here as well.

So I’m hoping that I get support for this. These changes are absolutely necessary. These changes are absolutely necessary right now. The entire city is asking about our downtown.

We have a chance right now to bring something real forward. When I brought the downtown plan early in the term, which I really appreciate the full support that I had. And I also appreciate the funding that we had for the development there in the multi-year budget. My goal was to lift downtown and put it in the position that it needs to be.

We need to follow through with that. We need to get rid of the old way of thinking and start thinking new and being bold. So I’m hoping for your support of my emotions today because this is a significant moment. Thank you, Councilor Ferreira.

I’ve got Mayor Morgan next. Yes, Chair, I’m going to be brief because I’m actually trying to save some of my time for what the consultant asked us to talk about today. The approach that we’re taking right now is not helpful for council decision making. I don’t disagree with anything, Mr Henderson said.

I don’t even disagree with the advocacy that the Council has through you, of course, on the downtown. But by putting a motion on the floor that starts to change specific things in the plan at this point, we’re going to spend all of our time debating whether or not we agree with Councilor Ferreira’s changes, which are unnecessary to make at this point in the process. We’re probably going to not get to having enough time in our debate to actually provide feedback for all the things that the consultant asked us to in the presentation. And we have the potential to have a bunch of other Councillors now add things in that they feel are really critical to their parts of the city at this point in the process, which is, is not really where we are right now.

You know, my preference would be Councilor Ferreira’s comments, his letter, Mr Henderson’s comments can be referred to the consultant for consideration in the redevelopment of the pillars and the evolution of the plan. And we continue with the dialogue and discussion at this point and check in that we spend our time today actually providing feedback on the components that the consultants and our staff are looking at the feedback on. Because my concern here is I’ve already probably wasted half of my time explaining that this is not the right approach. Well, really what we should be doing is spending our time saying these are the pieces.

So I’m inclined to, unfortunately, vote down a couple of these. I am willing to refer Councillors input and motion as well as Mr Henderson’s delegation to the consultants for further discussion. And I think we dig into the pieces and the motions, the type of motions that the Council are suggesting. At the next point in the process, once all the things that the consultant has said that they would do with the process happens, including all of the other discussions that will continue to occur, including some of the suggestions that Councilor ramen had about points that we want to be involved in the process.

That’s what this is today is about. Today should not be about unless you want to spend a lot of time today and a lot of time at Council, all of us making very specific detail motion of anything. And I’ll say to the Councillors credit, like we’ve talked many times about expanding to the core activity. I think, you know, we, that’s great point.

We don’t always refer to the downtown. We want to activate the core. There’s a, there’s a different piece here. But I’m going to say the rest of my time for some actual feedback on the consultants piece, but I wanted to say that today.

Like, I’m not against anything the Councillor said. I just think this isn’t the process that we were asked to follow. We’re going to spend a lot of time doing something that we’re not asked to do and we’re going to waste our time providing feedback on a different motion. Thank you, Mayor Morgan.

I have Councillor Hopkins next just before I go to you, Councillor. Both previous speakers have said, I want to save some of my time. Councillor Ferrera, you have a minute and 20 seconds left and Mayor Morgan, you have two minutes and 30 seconds left. So you did both use a substantial amount of your time.

I would just colleagues, if you want to have second go around, just be mindful of how much time you’re using in your first comments. And I’ll, I’ll do my best to keep you updated on that. Councillor Hopkins, the floor is yours. I’ll be really fast.

I’d like to go to the mover and the seconder to see if they can make the amendment to refer this to the, to Deloitte and taking the information that we heard from the chamber. I don’t want this to be lost. I think there’s a lot of great information, but maybe it’s a little bit premature if we can just refer it. Just adding a friendly amendment.

I don’t want it to be voted on and then have it lost through the process. So, Councillor, from a process perspective, you could move a referral. It’s a lot of friendly amendment. It would be a referral of this.

I will move the referral. Okay. You want to refer this to the consultant and staff for consideration in the next phase? Yes.

Okay. Is Councillor Lehman is seconding that? Okay. Now we have a referral on the floor.

That takes precedence. So we will now be debating the referral. So now I’ll look for speakers on the referral, Councillor Ferrera. Thank you.

I missed your chair online. Oh, thank you, Councillor Plaza. I see you there. So I’ll go to Councillor Ferrera and then to you.

Thank you. I appreciate the move by Councillor Hopkins to save this where we’re at. I feel like without the referral, we’re going to have definitely a missed chance and a lost opportunity. And while I disagree with the referral, I’m going to support it because there’s way too much to lose right now.

I think the arguments of process missed the point of what I’m trying to bring forward. And I think the substance and the impact that we could have right now potentially could be missed if I don’t support the referral. When it comes to what I’m asking for, I think this is the exact appropriate time to bring this forward. We are at this stage in the process.

We are going to have something come back in a few months. And I don’t know how braising this to a pillar doesn’t signal the right direction that we need to go to. It’s about investing in downtown. I need support to invest in our downtown.

People are really crying for it. So I appreciate you saving this. I appreciate the seconder supporting that as well. While I am disappointed that this is the direction we have to go.

I’m all over the referral as it is. So I’m not going to give whether I support it or not at the moment, but it is it is a delay. It is a big significant delay of what we can do. We need to signal to the city and we need to signal to the region that we have support in our downtown and we need to materially support it as well.

This is the time to do it. Kicking the can down the road is not the way to go. Thank you, Councillor Ferreira. Councillor Palose, I’m going to ask you to hold for just one moment.

I just need to process wise with the clerk. Check on something. So just for process sake, because we had a motion on the floor and I want to make sure I’m capturing your intent, Councillor Hopkins. And I think I am, which is not to finish the debate on the rest of the report being received, but referring clauses BC and D, which is Councillor Ferreira’s motion to the consultant civic administration.

Yes. Okay. That does matter just so that we can continue to debate on receiving the rest of the report. So that’s what’s being referred as the BC and D clauses.

Councillor Palose, the floor is yours when you’re ready. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, you know, having heard the mayor’s comments was looking to make this referral myself.

So I appreciate those and chambers getting to it first visually. I don’t believe it’s a delay. There’s still going to research a full report and bring it back. I don’t believe it’s kicking the can down the road.

As later, this is a full strategy for the entire city, just not one area. We all have issues in our own areas too, not undermining the importance of downtown, but really making sure it’s a plan to serve the entire city in just not one area or paying for two plans for the same areas. Also a concern of mine was also worried that if we, and I would have had to vote, no, that if we did vote it, no down, it would became a decider matter council when the full report did come back, potentially inhibiting our ability to do good work with it to serve the core area downtown, midtown and old Eastville and other areas. So supporting the referral and looking forward to getting back to the main report and questions that were before us from our presenters today.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Palosa. Any other speakers on the referral? Councillor, trust out.

And then I have Councillor Pribble. Well, thank you. Thank you very much. I always think putting a motion on the floor for a referral gives us more space to have a discussion outside the scope of one five minute piece.

But I’m going to keep this very brief. I would think that even without a referral, I would think that even if this was just going back to the consultant, that they would diligently take into account. Everything that’s been said today and you’re shaking your head positively. So I’m not sure what the point of a referral is.

I think the referral is other than trying to avoid an uncomfortable decision point for some. I don’t think there’s any real point to the referral because I think you’re going to, in good faith, do it anyway. I think you’re going to step up your consultation with the other group working on this. And there’s specific language in here talking about doing some targeted consultation with particular groups, including First Nations.

And I hate to keep coming back to that. So I’m going to vote against the referral and I’m going to vote against the referral, not because I want to be combative with my fellow council members. I’m going to vote against the referral because I think I’m going to vote against the referral because I think it is just kicking the can about an inevitable discussion that we have to have. And that inevitable discussion that we have to have is who is driving this process.

In my view, it’s this council that’s driving this process. So no, I don’t think it’s premature at this check-in stage to add some substance to what your instructions are. As a matter of fact, if you think that this is an iterative process, I think it’s actually very helpful. And I hope that you take my comments about not wanting to refer this in a good way.

Because I honestly believe you’re going to take these comments into consideration whether we pass this, whether we don’t pass this, whether we refer this, whether we don’t refer it. And it’s very thoughtful. It’s very substantive. And there’s nothing in there that is fundamentally inconsistent with the work you’ve been doing.

And I would think that you would welcome that submission as something that’s really helping you out a lot. So no, I don’t think we need to refer this at this point and I’ll be voting no one. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Trussa.

Councillor Pribble. I turn off my video because I hope you can hear me through the chair to miss Taylor. I have a question for you. Without us pushing the one pillar error focus on downtown without having it approved now.

Do we have an opportunity and will you consider without the direction from the Council to have a downtown on its own. The email I sent you, I did think that I put there a few good reasons, including the parallel strategic plan for downtown that I would believe that it does make sense for various reasons and to the benefit of our city to have the downtown by its own. So the question I have through the chair, would you consider it without the direction of the council? Councillor Pribble, we’re actually now asking the consultant to weigh in on a process that has to do with our council policies and procedure bylaws.

So I’m not going to ask her to do that. I think Councillor Trussa has expressed his thoughts on whether they would or not, but we’re not asking the consultant to weigh in on our council policy and procedure bylaws. So it’s not up to the consultant to engage in debate with us on the validity of a referral or not. The matter is in council’s hands.

So that question is out of order to the consultant. I’m not asking her about the plan. You’re debating, you’re asking her to engage in debate on the validity of the referral, and that’s a council process. So that’s out of order.

I will not be supporting what’s in front of us because there are two points and especially one of them that I would not agree with. So therefore, I will support for it. On the other hand, even though it’s not debatable at this moment, I do hope that I do hope the consultant will still consider it. So yes, we don’t want to delete things, but on the other hand, on the other hand, I really would like the quarter to have both parallel arrives so we can really start working on both of them.

And I just thought it was a really good timing. And anyways, that’s okay. I will, I will make my comments directly to the consultant and put a strength on the have an error focused pillar downtown on its own. Thank you.

Councilor Lehman. Yeah, thank you. I support this referral based on where I have perceived today being about. I agree with what the mayor was saying as part of process and that supports what I heard from the consultant.

This is the time to give feedback, such as the counselor’s amendment or motion, I think provided some feedback there. But I think that has to be taken into consideration with other feedback that the consultant staff will hear today as well, because on its own, things might, you know, just not be the direction intended. I look forward to hearing, you know, back from the consultant, a more refined idea of and plan and where we want to go. But I think this is a good generic starting point for this, you know, pretty broad discussion.

Thanks. Thank you. Councilor Lehman. Councilor Roman, can you take the chair, please?

Thank you. I have the chair. Go ahead. Thank you.

So I will be supporting the referral. At this point in time, I would like to be talking about the mission vision, vision values piece. I would not today be prepared to support the downtown as its own dedicated strategic pillar. In fact, I just had a conversation with the LDBA yesterday about the downtown master plan, the excitement they have around developing that.

And ask them about this and being a standalone pillar for the LDBA wasn’t something that they were lobbying me hard on as a strategic priority for them. They were focused on the downtown plan. You know, we’ve got consultations and we’ve heard from the chamber, but we’ve got tech alliance. We’ve got the small business center.

We’ve got the other BIA’s. To me, it is a city wide economic development strategy and not a geographic target. I do agree with Council for error as suggestion, though, that we have to focus on activate the core area as opposed to the downtown. I think that the midtown and old East Village components of that are important, and especially when I think about the, the, the anchor of sort of what I would call the end of the core in old East Village, where we have 100 Kellogg and the Western Fair and that great entertainment complex that’s developing along one of our best rapid transit routes.

And so I do see that as part of the economic driver, but I also see that as part of the core. So I think that there’s some good, there’s some good feedback in what Council for has brought forward. I’m also supporting the referral because I’m not sure what, what exactly we mean by additional time for targeted stakeholders, because I think that ultimately we do have to start making some decisions on this in the first quarter of this year. We’ve heard March will get the next report back.

And my concern is that additional time versus some direct targeted stakeholder. I know the consultant may have already done some of this may want to go back and touch base with some more, but hearing the work that they’ve already done. I’m more inclined to agree with Councilor ramen that I want to see that in in the meat and potatoes on the plate in the next report so that I can determine whether or not I’m comfortable with the level that’s been done. So I’m prepared to support the referral now, because there’s parts of what we’re in the motion that I could get behind, and there are parts that I cannot get behind.

So I would rather take the time to gather more feedback from everybody. Thank you returning the chair to you. I have Councilor Ferreira and I have Councilor Hopkins on the list. Thank you, Councilor Ferreira.

Question to Ms. Taylor. Are the pillars set in stone as they are right now, or is there a potential for changes as we go forward through the chair? Thank you for your question.

Nothing is set in stone right now. This is our first look. This is we want to share with you what has risen to the top. We want to provide a couple of options and hear your thoughts.

Find out which what resonates with you. What doesn’t. And so short answer? No, not set in stone.

Don’t, sir. Thank you. I don’t know if you guys recorded my engagement with Deloitte, but a lot of the predictions that I thought would come forward are. So if it’s not set in stone and the discussion that we’ve had here and just knowing what a pillar status will be, I hope that the forthcoming final report.

And I believe it will have some type of look on what we’ve discussed here with respect to the referral. So the way this process works is if we refer this, the discussion, I guess, is loud and clear. So a referral may doesn’t is not a no, which sometimes it is, which is why I’m worried. It’s a no in a different way.

But with this referral, I guess you can take that back. Okay. So with that, I am reluctantly supporting the referral. It’s not the way to go.

But if this is how I have to take it, then I will. I will say this. The reason it should be a pillar is because downtown is not in on its own entity. Other areas of this city, the east, the west, the north, you will operate on your own, but downtown benefits the entire city.

No other war does that. No other war. Councilor on the referral. I am.

This is why I’m going to. This is my argument for the referral. No other word does that. It is true.

If we invest in our flagship, which is the downtown, which is the heart of the city, the entire city will benefit. Property taxes will be lower. I’ve said this again and again and again. Reluctantly, I’m going to support the referral.

I don’t want to, but if this is how I have to take it, I will. I do hope future work that we have will have greater support for the downtown. We are far behind the eight ball when it comes to our downtown. I am trying as much as I can to get council support to support our downtown.

If this is the way it has to be, so be it. So I will be supporting this referral reluctantly. Councilor Hopkins. Just to summarize, Mr.

Chair, looking to colleagues for support on this referral. There’s a lot of good information here. I want to thank the downtown word counselor as well as the chamber. I don’t want this to be lost.

I hear that. I know the consultant is listening to this conversation and the importance of the downtown in our city. So looking for your support. Thank you, Councilor Hopkins.

Councilor Pribble, your hands up again. Are you, were you looking to speak again on the referral or is that the old hand? Sorry. No, it’s actually a new one.

I’m going to share with the video again. I do want to make because of the comments that were made. I do want to stress one thing, though, that one of the points. Let’s see that was proposed.

I do want everyone to realize that this is whole London and replacing investment attraction and retention is an incredibly valuable pillar for the entire London and to replace it. Just visit the core and economic cultural driver, which would be already already in the proposed downtown pillar, which there was. So I just want to make sure when I said that one, I certainly would not support. It’s this one, because this is for whole white London development.

Thank you. So, Councilor, just to be clear, Councilor, Councilor Ferreira’s proposal was not to change the entire investment and attraction pillar. It was to change and it’s listed there. The second bullet point.

So it’s changing downtown to core area. It’s not changing the entire pillar to core area to the exclusion of the rest of the city. So, although it’s being referred, I just wanted to be clear with you that that was not what Councilor Ferreira was had written. It was a bullet, not the entire pillar.

I do understand about investment and attraction and retention is an incredibly important bullet for the entire city. That’s what I was trying to make. Thank you. Hey, I have no other speakers on the referral.

So I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote. We will still colleagues have the report to receive motion. So we can talk to the broader report at that point in time, but this is just on the referral of the proposal from Councilor Ferreira. Closing the vote.

Motion carries 14 to one. Thank you, colleagues. So we still have a clause A to receive the report and we can be now engaged in the broader economic development draft framework that was presented to us. Councilor Frank.

Thank you. Yes, I just want to provide some feedback. So I appreciate the effort that’s gone in and the extensive consultation work that has also gone into the report we see today. I was hoping to see a little bit more included about the green economy, which perhaps it’s only me saying it, but I bet it’s not of it.

There’s lots of people adding that, but that was what I talked about a lot in my interview with Deloitte. And so I would love to see some more reference to that and more tangible actions and outcomes, because I do see that as a very strong pillar for future economic growth across Canada, but also in London. And then additionally, I was hoping to see a little bit more kind of like London flavor and seasoning in the in the plan. It does feel a little bit broad and it almost could be applied to any municipality, which I feel like maybe we’re all struggling with the same thing.

So perhaps we’re all speaking to similar ideas for success. But I am hoping to see some things that kind of could only be done in London where London is known to be a leader and known to be very successful. I don’t know how you include that, but I was just hoping to see a bit more of that, but I look forward to the next iteration. And that’s all I have for feedback.

Thank you, Councillor Frank. We have Councillor Hopkins next. Just before we do that, Councillor Frank and Councillor Hopkins, are you willing to be the mover and seconder on the receive of the whole report? Because we did do a referral.

So I just need to get a new mover and seconder. I’m seeing Councillor Hopkins not in Councillor Frank. Are you okay? So we’ll use Councillor Frank and Councillor Hopkins and Councillor Hopkins.

The floor is now yours. >> Yeah, thank you. And thank you for checking in with us. I want to start off with, I would like to see coming forward before March, maybe this is for staff.

City staff, an interim report getting a little bit more information to us before we delve in is something that I would appreciate. I found myself focusing in when I read the report on London’s competitive foundation. And I have heard for many, many, many years that there’s a lot of talent in our universities and colleges and in our institutions. But it just seems that it’s never a priority.

And I sense from this plan, this is what I see the plan being, that we’re starting to understand what that means. And I think we understand that through the lens of a livable city. And what does that mean? So having that information to answer those questions I’ve heard for many, many years, how can we retain talent?

It’s something that we’re on our way. It’s not completely clear, but I’m starting to get it a little bit more. And I do appreciate that in the framework. And when it comes to the downtown vitality, obviously we’re going through the downtown plan.

It’s got to be an alignment. There’s just no doubt about that in my mind. It’s really, really important that we revitalize the downtown. It’s set in our economic strategy that it is the found that it is a economic core economic infrastructure, as well as a community interest as well.

And I think the community part is very, very important. The other part I want to underline is the transportation. We know we must do better enabling us to move around, not only with local transit, but throughout Southwest and Ontario. But also how we fly and how we move around here.

We can be that city that can have all these ways of moving around. And that’s just going to drive the economic plan going forward. I want to just bring to your attention investment and attraction. I know we’ve got the UNESCO city of music in there, but it seems every time I see that word, it’s somehow where shy as a city to sort of take hold of that and do something with it.

I do think there is an opportunity as we go forward to doing more and having not being afraid to celebrate that somehow in our economic plan. I want to get back to transportation and access because that to me is a really important pillar. Again, it’s enabling us to move around better. I would, you know, I’ve been traveling in Australia and I’ve used transit, trains, trams and air.

That’s how I moved around. And I know we can do the same thing here in our city and in southwestern Ontario. That’s how we’re going to attract people. And that’s how we’re going to support tourism and the list goes on and on.

I just know we can do a better job. So I really appreciate that pillar being there. Last off, I want to, I think this is the second strategy that I’ve been involved during my time on council. And I’m starting to realize the importance of these plans and how we use them and how we can make better use of them, making them flexible, taking into account obviously the changes and demographics, immigration and all that.

But I think we can sort of change and adapt and not throw out the plan and come up with another invention. I think that is going to be something really important to me as this strategy comes forward. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins.

We have Councillor Lehman next. Thank you. I guess my general observation and feedback on this is just a cautionary note to stick to the London economic strategy. I think there is temptation.

And I think we’ve already seen now and I see a bit of it in here to drift into and you mentioned this, a strategic plan, which we knew we had did do in our first term of council, which deals with bigger city issues. This is an economic strategy. And so I would encourage that’s my feedback as you hear input here and go back. And just for an example of that to give you an idea of where I’m coming from just on the mission statement.

There’s option A and option B. I would suggest that option B to me seems to more directly address economic issues where option A kind of drifts into kind of a strategic plan area. So that’s I just wanted to get that feedback. Thank you, Councillor Lehman.

I have anyone else quite yet. So I’m going to ask Councillor Ramen to take the chair and all comment and then Councillor Stevenson put her hand up. So we’ll go to you after I commented. Thank you.

Go ahead. Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. So through you, first of all, I want to echo some of what I just heard from both Councillor Lehman and Councillor Hopkins, Councillor Hopkins. I’m 100% with you.

Let’s see that UNESCO city of music designation, not just for tourism, but for economic drivers and job opportunities within our city and that creative sector. I think that there’s a lot that we can do. I think we can also seize on the work that’s being done by the film London office to tie into that as well. There’s definitely an opportunity for the creative sector to play a bigger role in our economic development.

And I don’t see that just as a downtown issue, although a lot of the venues and a lot of the big attractions will be downtown. But I think about the programs that are offered at Fanshawe and Western, the pathways to employment for those secondary post-secondary students and what that offers in terms of our entertainment and our cultural sector. So I really do think the UNESCO city of music is something that we should celebrate across the city. I think we should have opportunities to see that happen, see that come to life in all parts of the city, not just in the core.

Again, I know the big ones will be in the core, whether it’s Sunfest Rock the park, all those kinds of things that we’re already doing. And that will add. I also think, and I say this with respect to Councillor Ferreira’s comments about the value of the downtown. Well, I absolutely acknowledge there’s an important piece to the downtown.

I will say that I think there’s an equally important piece in the East End, running through wards 3, 2, 1 and 14, the spine that is the Veterans Memorial Parkway, heart of our industrial manufacturing sector. Because that’s where the advanced manufacturing, that’s where the agar food processing happens. And that’s also the spine that links us to our geographic competitive advantage. That is access to the 401, 402 and 403 highway corridors that gain us access to all of North America through those corridors, as well as our London International Airport.

And when we, and I was excited to see in bullet points, aerospace developing that sector more, I think about the work that’s already happening at the International Pilots Test School. I think about the program that was offered in Councillor Cuddy’s ward in Ward 3 at Montcom, where we had secondary school students studying aerospace technology through the Thames Valley District School Board. So I think that that’s something that I saw in the report that I was really excited to see highlighted, because I think there’s a tremendous opportunity there. So I agree with everything that was said about the value of the downtown, but I don’t think when we’re looking at the city wide strategy, we can limit it to that.

I think we do have to be looking at these other key components that manufacturing spine. Also, and I referenced it already, the agricultural and agar food processing that we’re already attracting and that we, I think, have a tremendous opportunity to attract more of as we look at our regional connections. And some of the more rural, agricultural based communities that can feed into that system here and create employment opportunities, business opportunities in the city. Because at the end of the day, when we think about vacant commercial space, whether it’s downtown or in other parts of the city, because we do have some vacant commercial space elsewhere, we have to think about the whole of our employment sector.

And not everyone is going to be that next big content creator. Not everyone is going to be at a desk doing a nine to five job. There are people who are going to want to work in manufacturing. There are people who are going to want to work in construction.

There are people who are going to want to work in a variety of sectors in our community. And so we have to look at the whole picture on that. I will just say, when it comes to the vision mission statement, I agree with Councillor Layman that option B feels more economic development tied to me than the option A, which feels a little more aspirational and more city strategic planning on the vision piece. I actually like what we’ve seen.

I like parts of both. But I think option two is the stronger option, because it captures opportunity and progress, the talent attraction, the development of culture as well. I like the piece of the leading sectors that is captured a little bit in manufacturing and health sciences in the first one. But I think that option two is the overall better vision statement for us.

So that’s sort of my feedback. I like the pillars that we have right now. Those are my two preferences on the vision and mission statements and I’ll wrap up my comments there because I know I’m running out of time. Thank you.

Yes, you’re 15 seconds remaining. I’ll return the chair to you. And I’ve Councillor Stevenson and then Councillor Ferreira. And then let me get my list open because I’ve got four hands up now.

Councillor Stevenson, you are a first though. So go ahead. Okay, thank you. I’ll be quick.

I’m going to be voting no to receiving this, but I just, it’s not criticism of the work that was done. It’s consistent with my vote last April when I didn’t want to spend the quarter million dollars of taxpayer money on this on this. And being said, the talk of governance and accountability and measurable outcomes and correcting some system inefficiencies. I’m open to having my mind changed in March.

So I’ll look forward to the next report. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Just so colleagues know, the order is Ferreira McAllister Morgan for the next three speakers, Councillor Ferreira. How much time do I have?

We spent three minutes of time already, 330. So you’ve got a minute 30 left. And since I’m at it, Mayor Morgan, you have 230 left. So I guess my general feedback is I like the shared aspirations portion, and I do like how much engagement we had.

I, as you saw in the referral and in the motion, I do think there needs to be a little bit more indigenous engagement on that, where the indigenous community can get more of an action type of role. That would be something for that. I do hear that things can be amended, things can be changed. So I do hope that this conversation has enlightened you as enlightened, as I said before.

I do really appreciate the portion where we’re going to be leveraging London strengths. I do see, obviously, downtown as an economic driver as the strongest strength there is in London. So I do want to see that be leveraged with maximum potential. And I do like the the sectoral strengths and the cultural strengths and just the innovation and opportunity strengths that we’re looking at and how we can leverage all that together.

I do also want to point out on the governance piece. I do think that we need a really good refinement on the governance piece. I think that we need to ensure that we have coordinated type of governance, not only when it comes to on the administrative side, but with Council as well. We need to ensure that we have measurable actions and accountability, accountability is a big one on that.

So I’m hoping to see that be described and expressed as much as possible in the final report. I am going to support obviously the receipt as it is now. You did hear my comments for I’m very passionate when it comes to the strongest strength that the city has to give. I want to lift it up and I want to make sure that it’s in the right direction like I was saying before.

So you’re going to see my support as it is now. And I’m looking forward to seeing what the final report is and more discussion moving forward. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor Ferrera, Councillor McAllister.

You are up next and you haven’t spoken yet. So you’ve got your full five. Thank you through the chair. That’s my first time talking today.

So I just want to get a few things out of the way. I like option two. I also like option B. So those are kind of my preferences for that.

And I just want to speak with option two. I think the part that I really enjoy with that is the education to employment part. I think is really important. As somebody who grew up in London, I moved away because I didn’t see those opportunities, but I came back because I still think that my hometown, a lot of hope in terms of what London can become.

And I really think making those investments to tie education with local economic needs is really important. And I just think unfortunately sometimes we’ve missed that. I think there’s been some mismatch in terms of the programs that are offered and where we need to grow the economy. In my area, for instance, often here, a lot of talk in terms of trying to match opportunities, especially in high school with the trades, for instance, big drive in that sector, East End has always kind of had that history in terms of those kind of jobs.

But there’s a lot of opportunity there. And I still don’t think we’ve necessarily tapped into that full potential. Yeah, I think option B in terms of what’s already been described. I agree with that.

I would just say in terms of the proposed framework for the pillars and strategies, the area which I was particularly interested with is the system optimization. I think having a coordination, again, like I just said, with the workforce planning, especially, I think that we can really make a lot of progress on that front in terms of matching where we need people to be working in, which sectors, and having that future lens in terms of where we want people to go as they go from education into employment to ensure that we have both pathways in place because, again, I don’t want people to get through their time in terms of education and then say, I don’t see any opportunities. I took my four years and looked to other cities. I think we’re always kind of in that competition, especially with places like Kitchener, the GTA.

And so I want us to be competitive in those areas, not that I love always having to say, well, how can we be more competitive in Toronto? We just had a big campaign about, you know, don’t tell Toronto, but I want us to focus on the strengths of London and where we can get people to see value and, you know, having the roots here, but I think that work needs to start with a plan like this to ensure that we match where we want the education that we have locally because we have a job in Western. I already think we have a good base, but ensuring that we can have some alignment to match the education with the employment opportunities, I think would be great. So those are my thoughts on the plan so far.

And I look forward to seeing this come back down the road. Thanks. Thank you, Councilor McAllister. I had indicated Mayor Morgan, but I actually Councilor Palosa hasn’t spoken yet on the main motion.

So Mayor Morgan, if you’re amenable to waiting, I’m going to go to Councilor Palosa as a first time speaker. Councilor Palosa. Thank you. I’ll make my general comments and I have two questions to you to the presenter.

So appreciating the, well, I guess what we’re calling the executive summary, really looking forward to seeing what actually comes back as the substance in it when it comes appreciating the sector strengths and opportunities that we’re looking at underutilized cultural assets, absolutely, and identifying that out migration of young professionals, we have great post secondary and they leave us. So just making sure that London is the place that you want to stay and build your family and your career. I appreciate that we’re looking at under transportation, participants recognize transit as economic infrastructure and essential and abling conditions for workplace access tourism and economic growth. And I think this is one that we, we dabble in, and sometimes coming back and report saying that we are on the right steps and to keep going that it is important and having an impact looking forward to seeing that in the report.

Vision I like version two mission I like version two. Questions through each the presenter are under framework refinement, number three, part B is the implementation plan will include feasible short and long term actions. Usually there’s a midterm in there as well, looking for you to the presenter of like, is this report going to come back with short mid and long term or just short and long term is the first question. Thank you very much and through the chair, we typically identify initiatives in the short term midterm and long term.

We also identify potential partners as well as how much is going to cost. So that gives you some real information on which you can make your decisions. And also how we’re going to measure progress. Councilor Palosa.

Thank you. I appreciate the answer and we’ll look forward to seeing that drafted out in a report, always as the budget chair mindful of cost we’re going to cost and the what we expect to get as an outcome and measurables. That can be tracked throughout it and speaking of tracking. On the last, I guess second, last page of the reports, under pillars and strategies, under the system optimization that Councilor McAllister was speaking to when it speaks to improve data sharing and impact measurement.

Looking through you to see if one would anticipate that the recommendations are going to be reports coming out that we normally see a committee versus real time data tracking, perhaps a dashboard of what could we anticipate to see for data sharing impact measurement for recommendations. So I will see if Ms. Taylor wants to respond to that or if that’s one that Mr. Fowler is responding to or maybe it’s a team up between the two of you in terms of how report outs would happen once the plan is put together.

So if either one of you want to respond to that, go ahead. I will begin and through you, I would say at this point in terms of the initiative level that happens under these strategies, both of those are contemplated. We’ve been talking about both of those as potential options. They offer different, different value and they also have different costs.

And so part of that for us is working through following today’s meeting. What is the reasonable best fit and something that we can achieve and that will meet the objectives of accountability and transparency. Ms. Taylor did you want to comments as well.

Yes, thank you chair. I’d like to add to that just one thing, which is that we really like to keep the data points minimal, I should say, in order that we’re not just flooding Council with numbers with data with activity. We tie the metrics to the outcomes that we’re looking for. And so measuring impact is really what we want to achieve here, not measuring activity.

And so when we look at developing government structures around how this strategy is going to be implemented, that will include how data will be shared and how that impact will be measured. And there will be some options that Council can consider to Mr. Fowler’s point. Some of them are certainly more expensive and would draw on more of your economic development budget than others.

Councilor. Thank you. Just a brief comment in response to this, especially the last comment. Having being the chair of audit committee, interested in that one that sometimes we really do like to see actual measurables versus things got better and looking for how that money could be spent for some sort of metrics as we go as well has been flagged throughout the audit committee.

So just flagging that one I’ll be looking for when the report comes back. So thank you for this. And that concludes my comments at this time, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Councilor Palosa. And I have Mayor Morgan next. Thanks. So to the report, I will say, I agree with my colleagues who said, I think version two is better for the vision.

I think mission generally version two is pretty good. Although I like the resilience piece in version one on the guiding principles. I think they’re generally good. And I think I can spend a lot of time or the rest of my time talking about that, but maybe just at a higher level to help with your work ahead.

You know, we have people around this table who have to deal with a lot of stuff, right? And whether it’s so removal or tree branches down or neighborhood park improvements. You know, some of the things that we don’t often deal with top of mine are, you know, how many entrepreneurs should we be helping the city? How do we build a resilient economy and who should be helping us with that?

You know, these high level economic strategy pieces are the actual things that we need help with. And we need pretty direct guidance and advice on how to do that. You know, should we be bolstering the strong parts of our economy and leaning into them? Or should we be building new resilience and fostering new areas of the economy?

You know, how do we deal with international shocks and shifts? And who should be helping us do this? You know, what structures should we be doing internally at the city? What should be outsourced?

How do we actually maximize and leverage the limited dollars that we have across the system to make sure that we’re doing what we need to do to support, you know, a strong, resilient economy that has core staples? But also is willing to invest in areas that are new and emerging. And most importantly, and I think this is something that we need an incredible amount of help with is how do we actually take risk effectively? Like, you know, there are cities who have taken risk and effectively transformed their economies or greatly diversified them by making the right bet at the right time in the right way with the right partners.

You know, I think that’s incredibly difficult for us to do and seize the moment. It’s also really easy to get wrong a bunch of times. So I think as you develop this report, you know, as much as you can lean into the things that, you know, can aid us in decision-making given the multitude of ways that our work is pulled in different directions. And given that we run 100 different lines of business across the city, and this is a really critical thing that intersects with a lot of them, I think that’s really critical ahead.

And I’ll leave this and I know my time’s running out chair. I’ll leave it on one thing. You know, any individual one of us can’t own different parts of the city. We all have to take an interest in whether it’s downtown or the airport or the suburbs or the industrial area.

You know, we’ve got to think about this from a higher level as counselors and all of us each lean into the different parts of the city when we think about the economic development strategy. Thank you, Mayor Morgan. Looking for further speakers. Councilor Raman.

Thank you and through you. So I want to go back to some of the areas that we have and I don’t think went into as deeply and specifically around the guiding principles. I just wanted to dive into those a little bit more. So one of the challenges I had with the guiding principles was just around the wording and plain language of those principles, especially the first when we talk about system thinking.

I think it’s one of those things where people can get a little lost in what that means. So I’m just wondering how you guys from the perspective of plain language in this, how you look at that and where that comes along in the process. Miss Taylor. Through the chair.

Thank you for that. That’s a really good observation. And it’s definitely something we’ll take back and look at re rewarding that to Mayor Morgan’s point a few moments ago systems thinking really is where that happens. Where it’s aligned across departments.

It’s aligned across, you know, all areas of the city and where where we balance our concern for managing risk as well as our drive to make big things happen for the city and that systems thinking is how that happens. But not a lot of people are familiar with that term. So we will definitely take another look at the language in the guiding principles as well as throughout the strategy to make sure that it’s accessible to all. Thank you.

Thank you. On the second point of the guiding principles, it talks about the collaboration and co creation. How much time will any of our future reports spend on where we have opportunities and where there are issues. Miss Taylor.

Through the chair. I apologize. Could you give me a little bit more information on what you’re asking? Sure.

So in our future reports, what I’m trying to understand is from. So the guiding principles talks about collaboration co creation. We know many have identified through the years and currently that there are significant silos in the work that we’re doing in economic development. I’m just wondering how deep we will get into that conversation, how we will be able to, in my opinion, a need to flush that out and really get to what the basis of the issue is in order to establish that as a strong guiding principle going forward.

Sorry, Miss Taylor. Thank you. And through the chair. Thank you very much for expanding on what you’re asking.

So when we, when we get to the point where, you know, we’ve established what our strategic priorities are, we’ve identified initiatives. Then we look to, well, who in the ecosystem is best positioned to work either independently or in collaboration with others to deliver on these initiatives who and there will likely be several people who have a role to play as the initiatives are carried out. We’re going to map that out and identify, you know, what resources will need to be emplaced. But I’d also like to add if I may, while I’m speaking to the concept of collaboration and co creation.

There’s a desire to avoid duplication. And yet at the same time, when we have a strategy that citywide, we want all hands on deck. We want everybody pulling in the same direction. And so we are going to find that multiple organizations across the city are going to be doing things that look similar.

We look the same. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. They may be doing it in slightly different ways. Workforce development is an area that we’re going to pay particular attention to because we found that not only are a lot of people doing it, but they’re not communicating with one another.

And so looking to make recommendations on how that can work better. How can workforce development organizations that are outside of the city’s funding model. They’re completely separate. They contribute to this talent and attraction, sorry, talent and innovation pillar in a way that is not duplicative.

It is collaborative. Everybody’s working in the same direction and it’s going to have more impact than what we’re seeing now. So that’s the, that’s an example of how the guiding principle of collaboration and coordination will feed into the strategy. Thank you.

Councilor Roman. Thank you. That’s helpful. When I look at the information that’s contained in the research where you talk about emerging trends where you look at things like where there’s greater opportunity.

A lot of it comes down to automation, AI, robotics, industry, industrial, Internet of Things, etc. However, you categorize those all together. Where do you see that specificity showing up in any of these areas? Because I think that’s where I get a little lost and we start talking about key sectors.

Sometimes we miss some of the emerging sectors. We don’t capture them well enough. When we’re talking about key sectors here in London, I don’t think we speak to our strengths enough. I don’t think we talk about health care enough.

I don’t think we talk about education enough as a city and why those are continue year over year and time after time, why they’ve solidified their place in our economy here locally. When we talk about manufacturing, we tend to do that. But when we talk about those other two components, we don’t. And so I want to see us lean into that in greater depth.

And I think it also ties back to governance. I want to just hear from you a little bit on those elements. Just a little. Thank you through the chair.

We welcome that input, that feedback and taking that back to our team. We will look to ensuring that we’re reflecting London’s key sectors as well as emerging opportunities as we develop initiatives underneath these pillars. So around talent and innovation, certainly around investment attraction and retention and clearly around regional collaboration. There are certainly a lot of very exciting things happening on the regional level that London as the leading community in the region can play a significant role in.

And so the London’s leading sectors, we will make a commitment to reflecting those in the initiatives underneath these pillars. Thank you. Councilor. Thank you.

Yes. So I appreciate all the information that we’ve been provided with today on the pillars component of the discussion. I personally think sometimes more is less. And I think that we have a lot.

And although they all have a role to play, I think they are captured in other places in our strategic plan. So how they feed into the economic portion, I’m not, I don’t think they, some of them need to be standalone pillars. And I think we get a little bit lost in in the economic discussion when they start to be this comprehensive. So that’s just my opinion, but I’m happy to see that we’re, this is a starting point.

Just as my last point, I would like to have a further consultation would appreciate the opportunity to revisit the data that’s in these reports and really dive into that and have more discussion about where does that take us now, now that we know what we know based on what’s there. And just going to thank you for the work. Thank you, Councilor Raman. I have Councilor Pribble next.

Councilor Pribble, go ahead. And just before you do, Councilor, it is my intention to seek a desire for recess after this item is dispensed with. We do need to give our staff an opportunity for a break as well as some members of Council are asking for a break. So we will entertain a short recess after we’ve dispensed with this item.

Councilor Pribble, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair, to Ms. Taylor.

When I received this, it was more theoretical instead of the practical or the real world impact. And then I went through the details with the other studies you’ve done for other cities, and they were more real world impact the hands on the specific goals, objectives, recommendations, actions, et cetera. And I just want to make sure that this plan after the feedback you are receiving is going to be exactly in the same way more of the real world impact and theoretical. Ms.

Taylor. Thank you. And through the chair, Councilor Pribble, thank you so much for that question. It certainly is a commitment that we make that the strategy that we bring forward to you will be action oriented.

It will focus on implementation. It’s going to be structured to include clear actions and timelines and accountability. It will be detailed and just as detailed as the other reports that I know that you’ve referred to that our team has put together other strategies for other cities, but it will be tailored to London’s unique strengths, opportunities and challenges. I know I’m so excited actually to hear all of the comments around wanting to see more wanting to see more action, because that really shows Council’s commitment to taking action for economic development for the city.

And I can guarantee you that’s what will be coming your way. Thank you. Councilor Pribble. Thank you for that follow up answers for the chair.

You’re presenting to us the framework of the strategic plan. I know you briefly mentioned there’s an answer to the previous Councilor. The framework that will actually this will be executed. And I know I know I did ask this question before in terms of doing a comparative study with the other municipalities of our size and looking really maximizing opportunities through all the organizations.

And also reflecting that these organizations, they have certain various different funding. And will this be look into and will you be looking and giving us some proposals or proposals some current models from other cities and advantages, disadvantages. So we truly maximize our opportunities from this new strategy. Miss Taylor.

Thank you for the chair. I’m in to Councilor Pribble and the rest of the committee. And that is more detail than will be included in this strategy. We will be providing some options and recommendations overall for governance, as well as ways to optimize how the city’s funded partners can deliver on these strategies on this strategy, inspiring the greater economic development ecosystem to work toward these objectives.

But when it comes to identifying specific funding levels or structures, that would be something beyond the scope of this strategy. Thank you. Councilor Pribble. Okay, one quick comment through the chair.

I do want to maximize our opportunity. On the other hand, through the new framework potentially that we will implement by certainly don’t want us to lose any opportunity from losing higher levels of government funding. And the last question sort of chair, when you’re looking at the long term rules or initiatives up to how many years this plan is actually going to cover Miss Taylor. Thank you for the chair.

So two pieces. First, we will we will be sharing some opportunities for provincial and federal funding that can help support some of these initiatives. So that will be included in the strategy, as well as opportunities for leveraging funding through regional collaboration. So a lot of provincial and federal funding programs really are looking toward municipalities that are working at a regional level.

And those proposals are being funded more often than standalone initiatives for municipalities. So that’s, that’s one thing to your point. And then your question. I think I’m forgetting the second part.

Oh, the length of the plan. Yeah, thank you. So we would recommend that this plan would be about for five years. We know you’ve got about 10 years left on your, your greater plan, but things changed so quickly in the economy.

And we’re our expectation and hope is that the initiatives in this particular strategy will position London to be in a different place. Five years from now than it is today and that you’ll be looking to develop a new set of initiatives and strategies and directions going forward. Certainly wanting this particular strategy to be flexible enough to respond to, you know, shocks on the global and local level, but also recognizing that in five years, some significant progress should be made. And there should be another, another plan developed at that time.

Councilor Pribble. Thank you and completed agree with you. The world is changing on daily basis currently. Sorry, maybe you already said this.

You froze for a couple of seconds for me. I just want to say all the initiatives that you will come with. If you certainly can be looking at the municipal budgets, federal provincial reason why I’m saying it is that if you were to come back with all the initiatives that we won’t be able to afford through the municipal initiatives through the municipal budgeting, then of course, the provincial federal is going to take much longer. So I’m not saying not to reach out sky is the limit, but on the other hand, we do need certain initiatives that will be able to afford to jump on immediately.

Maybe you said it. Maybe I’m repeating it. Sorry, frozen for a few seconds. Thank you, Chair.

No more questions. Thank you, Councilor Pribble, and I have no one else on the speaker’s list. So I’m going to look to have the clerk open the vote. Seeing the vote, motion carries 13 to two.

Thank you, colleagues. And thank you, Miss Taylor for staying with us through that debate and presentation also to Mr Henderson for your delegation. We do still colleagues have two items on the agenda deal with 4.2, which is an amendment to the London Transit Commission board member composition, and then item 2.1 from consent, which was pulled at the start of the meeting. I’m going to look to see if we have a motion for a 10 minute recess.

And we will ask the clerk to open the vote on that in just a moment. That’s now open. So votes, yes, losing the vote. Motion carries 15 to 0.

Thank you, colleagues. It’s 438. So we’ll resume at 448. Okay, colleagues, we have quorum.

So I’m going to ask people to take their seats so we can resume. Councilors Palosa and Pribble are you with us online if you can just turn on your cameras so I can confirm I see Councilor Pribble. I see Councilor Palosa. So we are going to call a meeting back to order.

And the next item on our agenda is 4.2 request for an amendment to the London Transit Commission board member composition, and you have the communication in your package. So let’s see if there is a mover and a seconder and Councilor Hill here in Frank, and we’ll look for any discussion. And just so folks know the motion is in the e-scribe, they would have to bring forward. So we’d accept the resignation of Councilor.

Communication be received civic administration. We directed to bring forward to municipal council, a new bylaw with the necessary amendments to provide them on the transit commission. So it consists of five members of council. Yeah, let me start by saying I’m sorry that Councilor Palosa is leaving, but that’s her choice.

I would prefer that she stay, but I know we all have a lot of things to do. My question is for the clerk. If I understand the quorum rules, I know if we’re down to five people, that means you can only talk to one other person on the commission without violating quorum. Am I over reading that or is that correct?

Through the chair. So with a committee of five, quorum would be three, and if three members do communicate about an item that is on the agenda in council or for meetings involving municipal council, then yes, that could constitute quorum. I can’t speak to LTC rules, but generally accepted principles, a parliament procedure would mean that three is quorum. Councilor.

And if that’s the case, then that worries me a little bit, because I understand the spirit of the open meeting rules. But I think once you get down to a five member body, and you enforce that quorum, which I think if that’s the rule, we should enforce it. You create a situation where it becomes very difficult for people to have any sort of meaningful feedback with each other before a meeting. And I think before I go before we go ahead and reduce this to five, I would like to ask two questions.

Number one, is it would it really be that horrible if we kept it at six, which would mean the quorum is for the practicality of having ties. In my view is not that great, but beyond that, is there another member of council who would be willing to step up. I think we could ask to see if there’s another member of council who would be willing to step up to bring it back to seven, which would make the quorum for again, which I think is a little bit more reasonable. I’m just going to leave it at that.

I am very uncomfortable with having a quorum rule that means you can’t talk to more than one other person. And that would include the chair and the vice chair. So if the chair and the vice chair have a discussion with each other, as I would hope they do. That would mean technically, technically, if it’s advancing business, they couldn’t discuss it with anybody else.

And I think that boxes is into a bad situation. So trust that I’m looking for any further speakers. Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you.

I too have concerns about going to five. I know at the beginning of my term on the commission, we did have the conversation of having five. And it was decided at that time that seven would be preferred. So here we are now going back to five.

I know there’s a government governance review coming to us in the first. Or in the second quarter. And I would, to me, it made sense just to stay where we are, even though I was supportive of going five right at the beginning. But now we’ve had this seven.

So I’m not sure who can answer this question. Why are we going five and not trying to go and stay with the seven? And so we have a governance review. I just need a little bit more information or a bit of clarity or a reminder to how we’ve come to five again.

I will go to Councilor Frank next the communication from the commission itself is requesting the five. Councilor Frank. Thank you. Yes.

And I just wanted to share a couple of my thoughts and my understanding is I’d have to pull up the minutes. I’m pretty sure we had a union in his vote at the commission to go from seven to five. So that’s how we’ve arrived at this point is the commission’s requested to go from seven to five. And I actually was on the side back when we put all commissioners or counselors on to the commission.

I was on the side of having seven folks for the same reasons that council trust our race, but having had the experience of the last couple of months. I’m okay to go down to five. I think it having a odd number allows for a vote like a majority to occur. So I think that’s generally, you know, we have 15 people on council.

Our committees are made up of five. It is more of an ideal spot to land in when you have the ability to have a majority making a decision. Of course, ties fail, but again, that can be a little bit more of a gray area. So again, I’m personally supportive of moving down to five members of council and I’m well aware of the issues and understanding that you’d only be able to speak to another person.

Again, that was one of my concerns a couple months ago, but it is no longer a concern for me. So I’m good to support this. And I have Councilor Palosa now. Mr Chair, I just want to think Councilor Hopkins was still an ask a question and you went to Councilor Frank for an answer.

So you’ll the floor to Councilor Hopkins and stay on your list. Thank you. I appreciate the information that the commission made a decision going to five. I’m still not very comfortable with that.

And one of the reasons I’m not comfortable with that is that it’s going to mean unless we voluntarily one of us leave the commission. It will be down to a vote. And I’m just a little bit uncomfortable about doing this at that, that this time. I prefer staying at the seven.

I think for consistency sake. And, you know, I feel more comfortable with the seven in the five at this time. Thank you. Thank you.

Councilor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It was potentially unanimous vote of those present at the LTC meeting.

I was not at the meeting that my resignation was tendered. There is great work to be done there. I’m just unfortunately not able to stay. I don’t know if this is the space to ask if our Councilor is willing to are excited to step up and fill that void until the government’s review comes.

And if not to the clerk. If we’re, we’ve been aware of another commissioner who would like to either put their name, someone who wants to put their name forward, or someone who currently serves. And then in this space tender resignation. I’m hesitant on how that person would be come off.

Like, is it like a. Say version of survivor, but like someone’s going to get booted versus someone else who maybe wants to serve in that space. And certainly are standing committees at city hall. We have five, but then the mayor comes and goes and, and has that opportunity to vote in whatever space he enters as he is the mayor.

So sometimes we have even numbers to at our committees. So just a question of how, how the clerk would handle this procedurally if we go. If it does pass of going down and we need one person to be removed from a committee that may, they might want to serve on. The clerk and I discussed this in advance of the meeting today and I can advise Councillor Palosa that should this proceed and pass.

The, the clause C directs it to bring the bylaw to the next municipal council meeting. At that point, the bylaw would become enacted at the end of the council meeting with the mayor’s signature afterwards on the bylaw. Then at the next SPPC, we would deal with the composition of a commission of five. That could, that could be solved by council members thinking about it between now and then deciding whether they want to stay, whether they want to put their name on into a vote for one of those five positions.

So just as we populate our, our committees regularly, they can share really appreciate that you had that answer prepared as it does give us the timeline places to contemplate workloads and where you might be. People might be going. And just a question through to staff at one point, the governance review is supposed to be back in the fall of last year. And then I believe it was Q one of this year.

I’m hearing another Councillor’s comments, potentially cute too. I’m just, where is that going to land realizing there is an election cycle that commences in, in May and at what point do things get pushed one way or another, especially when it comes to governance. So just looking for that timing as well as we enter this decision making process. Well, let’s ask Ms.

share if she can respond to that. I certainly can Mr. Deputy Mayor, the report that came to council to approve the governance review provided a year to complete the work from the onboarding of the successful consultant. That actually happened fall of last year.

However, we will be reporting back in May of this year. So we’ll be well within that timeframe. I know it is well anticipated. We also intending to bring the three technical reviews in April as well.

Councillor Palosa. Thank you. And just to the clerks of, as it is an election year and make starts, it is, I assume there’s no concerns at this point. And if we put that decision making to May, should Councillors want to do something different with today’s motion that’s on the floor, just procedurally, we’re getting into a weird time of year.

Yes. And again, I can advise you that it’s not impacted by the opening of nominations. We would be able to fill that just as we would any other committee vacancy or board vacancy. Perfect.

Thank you. My question’s been satisfied this time and looking for other speakers. Councillor Ferrera. Thanks.

Chair stepped into this conversation a little bit later. So if I say anything, that would suggest stop me. But just looking at the motion, you know, and I see kind of the way we’re speaking about the commission as a separate entity, which it is, but the commission is this Council and this Council is this commission. And I know that there is great work to still be done.

And we also have that governance review coming in Q two, I believe it’s May, which is just right around the corner. And with respect to being so close to election as well, I could understand just the issues that are being raised with that. But I feel that this might not necessarily be the right direction. I feel like we can make some amendments here.

We did have representation from the public at large on the original commission as it was before we changed. There are other avenues that we could take rather than looking for anyone to replace the commission. So like, you know, I would, I would go around. I think it would be wise to go around Council and see if there is anybody who does want to resign willingly.

And if we don’t find that, then I think it would be the next step should be making a call out to the public at large to serve that temporary interim board level for the commission for the months from now until we get that governance review back. I think that would be a wise choice to do. I wouldn’t be supportive of bringing it down because if I don’t see anybody who’s willing to resign from the commission, then I wouldn’t be willing to remove someone from the commission on this council. I don’t think it looks good for optics and I don’t think it’s good for the commission as itself.

There are other ways that we can move forward on this. I would like to put, I guess I can come back to this. Actually, let me ask, I have to make a motion on my first remarks. Correct.

Okay. So I’m going to make a motion that we look to first see if any counselor is willing to resign from the commission to go from six to five. And then if not, I would make a motion that we seek out any public interest to serve on the commission for a temporary basis from now until we get the governance review back. I know there’s a lot of people out there that would serve and do very well on the commission and we do need that public representation.

Okay. So, Councilor, sorry, I just, I need to cut you, cut you off there for a moment. Two things. We cannot do a straw poll in council chambers of, of whether or not anyone is willing to step back.

Or if anyone is willing to step into serve the position. Okay. That’s procedurally, we can’t do that. It has to be a recorded vote on a motion.

We can’t just straw poll. You suggesting that you want to fill the position with a member of the public is contrary to a decided matter of council earlier in this year, where in we opted to keep the positions filled by counselors were debating the number right now, not going outside. So you would have to, this motion would have to be defeated, then you would have to put an alternate motion on the floor. And the reason I’m stopping is because I need to check with the clerks on whether if this motion was defeated, what your options even are in terms of an alternate motion because of the prior decision to populate the commission with members of council.

So just hold your thought for a moment, please, sorry to interrupt you mid thought, but I need to procedurally confer with the clerk. That’s okay. If you could also ask another question. When was the matter decided just to make sure we are it within the decided matter of council.

Composition was decided within the last year, it was changed on April the 1st. Bylaw was amended to change the composition to be populated by council. At that time, the number was left at seven. So changing the composition rather than the number would be contrary to the motion that’s on the floor right now.

It would not only need reconsideration, but you would be resetting the conversation about what the composition of the commission is back to where we were on April 1st of last year, if reconsideration were to pass. So, and if you simply wanted to change the number, then you would have to have a specific number. So I hope that’s helpful in terms of what you can and can’t do right now. You would have to defeat this motion to put an alternate on the floor.

Okay, I appreciate that. It is helpful. I would say, I think we should defeat the motion, even if we don’t get another counselor that wants to set for, even if we don’t want to reach out to a member of the public, which will serve as well. From now until May, is it is, I guess, going to staff just for a thumbs up.

Is it May when we’re getting that governance report coming back? Yes. So that’s four months from now. So I would think that the main issue that could arise would be the tie of a vote, which can come to this council and we can resolve that.

It should be short lived. I don’t think changing composition or the amount of members on the commission right now would be appropriate, especially considering everything that I spoke into. I wouldn’t be supportive of this motion as it is. I think it’s not a good look.

I think it definitely doesn’t look good on our confidence when it comes to the commission, how it’s operating right now. And in the end, it can come to council and we can, we can resolve any tie votes. So I would ask to defeat the motion and it would actually counselor, sorry to interrupt again, but a decision of a commission, the commission would not come to council to be resolved. It would die at the commission on a tie.

Decisions of the commission don’t come here for ratification. So just for clarification, it would not come here. Those four months, and most of the decisions that I saw on the commission didn’t come close to a tie. So I don’t think we should support the motion.

I think we should keep the composition as it is. I would hope that a member of council would decide to fill the seat in the meantime. And if not, I think an alternate motion after the fact, if it was defeated, would be to reach out to the member to the public at large. We have great representation waiting in the shadows of the public looking to serve on the commission.

So I’m looking to defeat this motion. I don’t, I don’t want to support this motion at all. Point of order on the motion. Hold on.

It’s just still in clerks. Okay, we’re good. Council has previously said they’re going to be seven members. Would changing that the five also be contrary to a decided matter of council?

Yes. So the advice for the clerk was, no, it doesn’t need reconsideration because at that time, we didn’t change the numbers. The commission was already seven. We changed the composition to counselors.

So it’s not contrary to change the number. It would only be contrary now to change the composition to a decided matter of council. The change in the number to seven was made over a year ago when we added two additional members of the public when Mr. Little and Ms.

Madden were added when the commission was expanded. Any other speakers on the motion on the floor? Councilor Hopkins? I know this is my second time.

I didn’t support it. And the five. And if it is defeated, I’d like to bring forward seven members of council. If it’s defeated, it stays at seven.

Regardless, there’s no need to bring forward an alternate motion. It just stays at seven. And then there’s a vacancy. Any other speakers?

Councilor Ferrera. Can I move a motion for a referral at this stage for Council to maybe mull this over and see if anybody wants to step forward? A referral is always something that can be moved. So you could move a referral.

You would need to provide at least timelines. So one cycle, two cycles. What? I would motion to refer two cycles.

Yeah, two cycles to give council adequate time to consider. So that would be my motion. Okay, so you want to refer to. I’m just going to check the calendar date, so we make sure we have the right date.

So just so colleagues are aware on the calendar of what that looks like. Two cycles of SPPC would put it to the 24th of February and then council on the 3rd of March where the bylaw would be ratified. And then you would be dealing with the number or members composing that commission on the 24th of March. That sounds good to me.

I got a question. How many LTC meetings will there be from now until then if we were to support the referral? If the clerks or anybody would be able to answer that. I’m assuming to.

Well, let’s ask the chair, but I would assume that there is a January, a February and a March meeting that would be impacted by that. Councillor Frank. Thank you. Correct.

Although I have requested to at the end of this month to review our calendar for the year. So could change, but definitely there’s going to be a January meeting. Okay. So you’ve got a motion, Councillor.

Is there a seconder for that? Councillor, trust I was seconded. Okay. So we have a mover and a seconder.

Councillor Ferrera. I think this referral is appropriate. It gives us time to mull it over. Looks like there’s only one meeting in the cycle.

I don’t know how happy the business will be, but if you just have one meeting on that, it would give us indication on potential ties. Potential issues that we are worried about when it comes to a six member, even number of commissioners on that. And I think the biggest thing, it gives us time to think. It gives us time to consider for all we know a member of Council here might be willing to serve on the board.

If they look at their schedule and they think that it would be appropriate to serve the community and our public transit. So I’m looking for support on this referral. Okay. Other speakers on the referral.

Seeing none, then I’ll ask the clerk to open the vote. Oh, sorry. Can you just check, describe or just refresh Councillor Ferrera and make sure that it’s reflecting your intent? I will ask the clerk to open the vote.

Closing the vote motion fails five to 10. Okay. So we are back to the motion as moved and looking for speakers, seeing none, then I will ask the clerk to open the vote. Sorry, was there.

Sorry, Councillor ramen. I thought you were raising your hand, but you weren’t. So we’ll ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote motion carries 11 to four.

Thank you colleagues. That concludes item 4.2. We have from consent, a deferred matter of 2.1 from the beginning of the meeting. This is the mayoral direction.

City owned parking lot redevelopment of 199 right out street. We also had an in camera item tied to this matter. So I’m going to ask the vice chair if she can report out on the in camera before we move to the consent item. Thank you.

I’m pleased to report the progress has been made on the items of which we want to camera. Thank you. And that brings us to item 2.1. The mayoral direction on the 199 right out and 84 Horton Street City owned parking lot redevelopment direction with sincere thanks to all of the staff who have been waiting patiently since 1 p.m.

to be available to answer our questions on this matter. And I will look to see if someone wants to move motion. Councillor trusso. Yes, I’d like to make a motion that reads the same as what we have in our packet with the addition.

And that no further action be taken at this time. So we’re receiving the report for information and not taking further action. Okay. And is there a seconder?

Councillor Stevenson for any debate seeing Councillor Stevenson. Just through you just wanted to confirm to staff how they would interpret that motion. Mr. Felberg.

Thank you. And through you, Mr. Chair, it’s a good question because we do have direction to undertake a procurement from a previous direction from Council. And we look to the clerk for some advice on how to work that I think Council is looking for us to cease all action in regard to this and not take procurement action.

So over to you guys and let us know how to proceed. Okay. So just to make sure we’re capturing the intent and to be specific with with everything. The clerks have put a vote for in eScribe.

Can everyone refresh and just make sure because to Mr. Felberg’s point, this would get really specific about ceasing any further procurement rather than just take no action on the report being received. So if we can just read that out. And then what people are taking a look at that.

I’m going to apologize, but I missed hands. Miss Councillor Ferris hand. I almost missed Councillor Stevenson’s hand. If we can just, if I can just ask everybody to stick your hand out when I so I can see it clear because I’m not trying to miss anybody.

But I’ve missed a couple of people. So, and then I thought Councillor Hummon was raising her hand when she wasn’t. So apologies. Yes, the phantom hand.

But if we can just really clearly indicate if you’re looking to get on the speaker’s list. Please for second or anything just so I can see Councillor truss out. I think that language is is much better. It’s much more precise.

And it doesn’t really stop us from getting more information about other side issues that could arise for our information. So I think that’s a better version. Okay. And I’m just going to ask Councillor Stevenson.

Are you okay if we change to Councillor Ferris? He wanted to second that and I missed his hand. So we’ll leave it with Councillor Stevenson. Councillor Stevenson, any further speakers on the motion that’s before you?

Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, quick question through you, Mr. Chair. There are two addresses.

Could they be split or do they have to go side by side? I’m not sure who can answer that question. So this is the clerks have taken this language exactly from the original direction to staff that was in the strong air direction. So they have to be together.

Councillor ramen, can I ask you to just take the chair just for a quick moment. Thank you. I have the chair. Go ahead.

So just a really quick question through you, Madam Chair, to staff. If this is supported, it would not necessarily preclude looking at other uses for this property. I know there’s other uses aside from housing that might be considered there. So I just want to ask if staff would interpret this as taking no action on looking at other options for the property.

I know we haven’t provided directions for other options, but it wouldn’t prevent a future motion from providing some direction. I just want to make sure that I’m understanding the interpretation that would be taken there. Thank you. And through you, Madam Chair, the way that I would interpret this is this is specific to the mayoral direction to look at residential and development at this particular site.

If Council wants us to undertake additional activity, we’d look for direction for that at a future meeting or a future SPPC. And then we would take action after that. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Okay.

Thank you. We’re turning the chair to you. Okay. Thank you.

Have any other people on the speakers list? So Councillor McAllister. Can we just call it A and B separate votes? Yes, we can.

Give us just a moment to separate those out. Yeah. Typically, I think that would be a very reasonable thing to do. However, as I understand the meeting of Part A, it would mean that if Part B was defeated, but Part A was passed, that would be an end to the matter at this meeting.

And all of the other discussions that we might want to have about qualifying, what it means to receive the report, which I understand there are some would be off the table at this meeting. And if it passes it Council would then be a decided matter of Council. So while I appreciate the intent, I worry about the interpretation of defeating B, but passing A. So I would object to that.

If they’re passed together, the intention is that no further action be taken other than receiving the report. So let me check with the clerk here. My intent, I would say from the chair, my intent was to call B first, which is the take no action piece, and then A to receive. Rather than A to receive and then B to take no action, but let me quickly check with the clerk.

So in conversation with the clerk, even if you called it together, if it loses, then A would have to go back on the floor to receive anyway. If you call them separate, you would have A is received B is the definitive clause, because B is the clause that directs the take no action. And so that’s really that either way, A has to essentially be received in some way, shape or form, whereas B is the definitive action piece. So from the clerk’s perspective, it is in order to separate them because people could decide that they want to continue to receive this as an update and staff will continue to do some work.

Or they could decide they don’t want staff to continue some work, which is where part A comes, or sorry, part B. If B is defeated, could A then be amended? I can call B first, and if B is defeated, A could be amended. The only thing is if you amend A, it can’t be to take no further action, because you’ve just defeated it.

So it would have to be different amendment-wise, and I would just say that if B was defeated, but A was passed, and if you’re not sure exactly what you might want to amend A to, you could still amend A at council, if that’s helpful. Seeing a thumbs up there. Okay, Councillor Ferrera. Mr.

Chair, so clarification. I want to know how do we not support this motion as it is? I will receive the report, but I am not interested in continuing work other than potential studies. Other than that, how would I, how do we ensure that this motion kind of captures the intent of the mover and the seconder, which I believe the intent is there’s no support here on this?

So how do we do that? Do we amend A right now? Say the report received and take no action? B, civic administration to take no further action?

Do we do that? So if you want to stop any further work on this, then you support B, which I’m going to call first, and that stops. There’s no support. We’re not doing any more work on this property.

I understand, but if we support B first with taking no further action, then A is kind of a second chance to see what we can go. How can we go forward on that? So from how I see it is we make our decision, but then we make the decision again? No, you have to receive the report, no matter what.

So A has to happen. All that leaving into Council Trust, I was point of order at council. A could be amended to provide a different direction to civic administration, but it could not resuscitate the take no action on the housing piece. So for clarification, what type of actions would be able to be taken by supporting the report to be received?

Because there are actions within that report for receipt, as I’ve read it. So I wouldn’t be supportive of those actions. I am supportive of receiving the report in principle, but not in principle, approving the actions within the report. Ms.

Stater’s Bear. I’m just wondering, it would be helpful for us to understand what to be received means so that would help the Councillor. It’s an information report. There’s no request for any action in this report.

To receive the report is literally to say it was formally received by this committee. That’s the extent to it. I think I have that right through the chair to the clerk. I do.

Thank you. That was helpful, Councillor Ferriero. Clearest Monty. That’s okay.

I think I get it. How do I ask this question? Any associated reports with this report? Would any potential actions in those associated reports be taken if we receive the report?

Okay. Mayor Morgan on a point of privilege. Yes. I’m going to ask the Councillor on a point of privilege to retract the clear as my comment.

The city manager responded to a clear question with a clear answer. It was not unclear how it was and those kinds of comments to our staff are inappropriate. And I would ask the chair to enforce a contraction of that comment. Lighthearted comment.

Wasn’t. Wasn’t one. Okay. So the chair has been asked for a ruling.

Yeah. So I’m going to, I’m going to suggest that. I will say this. Hang on, Councillor Ferriero.

As chair, I’ve been asked to rule on a point of personal privilege. I can see where the mayor is coming from, but I also think that that was probably not your intent. So I just wonder if you want to word it slightly differently that you’re like perhaps that it’s, it still leaves questions about how you could proceed with what you’re hoping to do rather than. I may not have or understand the same way as the mayor understands.

So saying to me that it was clear to you doesn’t mean that it’s clear to me, but I will retract the comment. So I’m going to come back to your question, Councillor Ferriero, because I think perhaps what I heard you say, and if I’m wrong, I apologize. But what I heard you say is there are some things in the report that you would be interested in getting some more information on or having staff investigate some steps, but not to the extent of proceeding through the procurement process. Don’t stop me if I can’t be saying some things.

Our environmental report, more comprehensive review of the subject lands of, I guess I’ll leave it there, would be the only thing that I would be interested in looking into. Other than that, I wouldn’t be interested in proceeding with a negotiated request for proposal process. I wouldn’t be able, I wouldn’t be interested in proceeding with the report as it is. I would just be interested in more information gathering.

I’m going to try this as an example, Councillor Ferriero, based on the clerk’s advice and see if this is what you’re trying to perhaps capturing and what you’re asking. We could ask B, and that would end any action on the high density housing. We could receive A, and then if you wanted to take the time between now and council to discuss with staff, for example, an additional direction that said, and civic administration be directed to conduct an environmental assessment update or some sort of direction like that, that would be in order to an amendment to receiving the report, because it would include an action that is not tied to the high density housing, but to your comment about environmental assessment evaluation, like that kind of direction could be provided. I would just suggest that you might want to take an opportunity to talk with Mr.

Felberg, and perhaps Ms. Sharer’s department as well might need to run an environmental assessment assist you with some language around direction so that we get it right if you wanted to make that amendment at council. Is that helpful? That is helpful.

Is there anything else that could also be included on that, or would it just be strictly those type of options, or receipt, if I were to receive, because I’m considering other potential, and then it’s that could come for other work. So the only thing that would be precluded would be the part B procurement for high density housing. Other directions could be included, but by doing the take no action, we are removing the high density housing from the equation. Well, that’s clear.

Councillor McAllister. Thank you through the chair. Just a quick comment on this. I’ll be voting against B.

I still want to explore this. If committee will remember when the mayor brought forward this direction, we had a number of sites all were eliminated, except for these two. I still think that there is merit in exploring this further. I think it’s incumbent on us as a council to look at city on sites.

This was direction the mayor had brought forward, but I’m still interested in exploring this. I think as a city, we need to also be putting sites on the table in terms of getting affordable housing built. I know this isn’t explicit to affordable housing. This is high density housing, but even looking at the language, I’m pretty sure I was the one who amended it to encourage modular construction, because I was very interested in seeing housing built faster.

So I still think that there is some creative solutions that we could do with this site, and I want to see what options we could have with it, so I will be voting against B and receiving the report. Thank you. Thank you for any other speakers. I see none.

If committee will indulge me, I will just say from the chair, I concur with Councilor McAllister. I know that there was some reference to in the report, the addresses having coal tar. I think that engineers are quite creative in how they can do brownfield mitigation these days. What that would look like, I don’t know.

I know some engineers will tell you with enough time and money they can fix anything. Barriers are the time and the money, and we have limits on both of those for ourselves, but as Council, but I would be open to getting a little further down that path, too. So I’m not ready to take no action yet. I concur with Councilor McAllister, but I understand why folks may want to look at other things.

Councilor Stevenson. Thank you. As we engage in debate on this. I did want to ask through you to staff regarding there’s 400 spaces of parking in that lot that is walkable to the Budweiser Gardens and critical to some of our downtown events.

And seeing as we had a downtown parking strategy in our strategic plan that wasn’t funded and we haven’t talked about, you know, parking comes up as one of the top two or three issues facing the vibrancy of our downtown. Has this been considered at all as we look at development of this as to how that would impact our commitment to the downtown and meeting the needs that are there as parking? How is that 400 spaces going to be addressed? Mr.

Felberg. Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair. So absolutely parking is going to be one of the parts of the things that we’ll procure for.

That’ll be one of the pillars that we’re looking for from the proponent is to identify how they will retain the use spaces on the site. And if they are able to provide additional spaces, not be wonderful, but it also and also address their parking needs for their particular development. Councillor Stevenson. I guess I was thinking interim measures as we were doing as that development moved forward.

How do we address the parking issues? Mr. Felberg. Thank you and through you, good question, Councillor.

That’s part of the submission that we’ll receive and as we work with the proponent, we’ll be looking for ways to retain that parking. It could be that there may be a reduction in parking for a short term as we do the remediation and undertake the construction of the development. We also have potentially the ability to use the 84 Gordon Street site as well as another alternative for parking. It’ll depend on the use, it’ll depend on the development that we have before us when we receive those proposals.

Councillor? That’s good, thanks. Councillor Ferrera. Thank you.

I appreciate the question from Councillor Stevenson. That is going to be an issue as long as remediation could potentially take, especially considering the amount of coal tar that could be there. Budweiser Gardens, patrons of there at any hockey game, they use that parking lot. It’s full.

So it is a concern. On that, we don’t have an unlimited amount of money. Remediation can be very expensive. That’s why I was thinking about the reports.

We need to know exactly what we’re up against. But I’m not going to support A or B. I’m not just because of with receipt and how that could potentially lead to something else. I don’t think that just how the technicalities of everything and how it works together.

I’m not going to receive that. Obviously, I’m going to receive the report. I appreciate the report and the information therein, but I’m just not going to support either A or B. I would hope that this council doesn’t support it either.

Thank you, Councillor Ferrera. Looking for other speakers. Mayor Morgan. Yeah.

I wasn’t going to say much to this, but a couple of people wait in and I just want to make sure that I’m there to support the comments that Councillor McAllister made. I think there’s a lot of things that we don’t know about this site. I’ll tell you what we do know. We know that through a process, there’s interest in from the private sector in potentially submitting proposals to this site.

We know from our staff that we could potentially increase parking on this site. And we know that there is money available to participate in potential partial or complete. I’m unsure what the proposal would say. Clean up of portions of the site from an environmental perspective.

I’m not interested in not at least hearing proposals that might improve both the environmental conditions of the site, create a greater highest and best use for the site, as well as potentially a potentially increase in parking in the area in the downtown. Should the process determine that that be necessary or needed? So I’m happy to get the next step in the process, which means I’m not going to support some portions of this motion. At that point, I would reevaluate my support, but I think that there’s a pathway here to going to the next step in the process and seeing what the private sector can creatively do to provide some affordable housing in our core, to provide some market rate housing in our core to potentially clean up an environmentally contaminated site that has been that way for a long period of time and see what the future holds.

So this time, I’m still supportive of the direction that staff crafted. I appreciate their work on this. I recognize though that this is a thing that I brought to council that we have collectively endorsed and changed a number of times. And so we’ll see where the will of our colleagues want to go, but I still think it’s a good idea to pursue.

And I’ve Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. Just a few more questions through you to staff. What kind of number of housing units are we looking at in this lot?

What are we hoping for would be an amount that we might be getting off of this lot? Mr. Filberg. Thank you.

Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair. So we’re looking at about if we were to achieve a development of around 15 stories, we could be looking at about 160 units, which is equivalent to about 400 units per hectare. Councillor Stevenson.

Okay. Thank you for that. And there was mention that there was interest in this proposal. What can staff share in terms of how much interest there was expressed?

Mr. Filberg. Through you, Mr. Chair.

So we did a request for expression of interest. We received three proposals and all three were viable and good proposals. Somewhere a little more detailed than others. And we’ve also heard anecdotally from other developers in town that they might be interested in this site as well.

Councillor Stevenson. Thank you for that. The other thing that the mayor referenced was that we would get to see what proposals might come forward. So understanding is Council will only see a proposal that would be accepted and brought to us to be awarded for contract.

So I just want clarity there. Are we going to see options that are available? Or are we going to be brought one? Mr.

Filberg. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And through you, yes, it would be one proposal.

Once the selection process has gone through the NRP, once we’ve gone through all that process, we bring the final recommended proposal forward to Council. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. Just one last question then.

And so the particulars around all of all the details of the negotiations, how many units, agreements that are made in terms of cost sharing, all of that would be determined and negotiated through the NRP. And we would be brought it for a yes or no at that point. Mr. Filberg.

Through you, Mr. Chair. Yes, that’s correct. Thank you, sir.

To follow up on Councilor Stevenson’s question. Does that include questions about liability sharing, responsibility for further cleanup and the like? Would that be something the Council could open at that point? Or would all of that be contained confidentially within the documents that we receive for a yes or no vote up or down?

Mr. Tatavari or Mr. Filberg, whichever one is appropriate. But I think Mr.

Tatavari probably. Through the Chair, I believe through the process of presenting the final award for Council approval, there could be some discussion about the content of the proposal and the negotiations that could be discussed in camera to have a better idea of how Council wants to proceed and some of the risks of proceeding. Councillor. Along the same lines, when, if at all in this process, would we engage in consultation with first nations?

Assuming that there is an event such as potential effect on downstream that would trigger that. To either Ms. Politer or Mr. Tatavari.

Through the Chair, I believe through the development process, there would be typically some level of obligation on the developer that would be that would be discussed with them to make sure that there’s communications with the indigenous communities and the our current development processes that require discussions and consultation are typically consistent with the provincial policy statement. And so there would be some consultation through that process. Thank you. And if I may and I’m choosing my words very carefully here because I want to stay within what’s appropriate in an open session.

The duty to consult under the developing law as uncertain as it is. And as questionable as its applicability to municipalities is. It’s even more questionable whether it’s applicable to private properties. But wouldn’t it make more sense if we go ahead with this?

And that is not defeat the whole thing and not stop the whole thing to begin those consultations immediately. And would an amendment later on to that effect be in order? Because I don’t want to get to the point where we’re at the planning committee. We’re at DEC having a discussion once again about whether or not the consultation has been proper.

Because once we’re at that point, we’ve gone through, we’ve missed a lot of opportunities to do the types of meaningful consultation that the duty to consult would I would think would require as early as possible. Just give Mr. Tatavari and Ms. Paul to confer.

Through the chair, if the question relates to our obligations or whether the risks associated with consulting with indigenous communities earlier in this time. And maybe a discussion that we need to have an enclosed session. It’s something we could also take back and have a discussion and a closed session if required at council as well. Thank you for that.

And again, I do understand the ambiguity in the state of the law right now with that. But I do not want to put this off until we’re well into, there’s a development application on the table and it’s at DEC. I think that we owe, again, this is assuming that there’s a condition here that triggers the obligation to consult, which would not just mean they’re putting up a building, but if there are potential implications for the river, then I think that would be such a triggering event. And unless we’re given fuller information, more than we would normally get in the RFP process, I’m not sure when this council would be in a position to be able to make that evaluation.

That’s what really has me worried here. And that’s why I’m hoping to be passes. No, it’s a statement of your opinion on the position, so that’s fine. It’s not a question to staff, though, so.

Councillor Stevenson. I just want, like, the conclusion of the public report, it says that these lands were transferred to the city as well as the liabilities and the opportunities to explore the site’s development potential. It says that coal tar contamination is known to exist on the lands west of Rideout Street, including 199 Rideout Street, that an environmental assessment didn’t find it at 84 Herten. It says that the intent of the procurement process is to offer these parking lot sites as is, with respondents responsible for preparing the land for redevelopment, including obtaining the necessary regulatory approvals and clearances to allow for the proposed residential development.

That’s the intent of the procurement process. That’s all that Council knows is the intent. And we are delegating the authority to do this negotiated request for proposal, which we don’t know any of the details. We don’t know who.

There are three people or more. All of the negotiations of a very complex risky. There’s an 89 or $90 million reserve fund set aside here. That we were delegating all of that to be brought back at the end, a yes or no at the end stage of a procurement process.

So I’m just going to ask my colleagues to support this for now. It’s not going to preclude us from doing something further later. But this is a complex property with a complex development where we don’t know any of the details. It’s not an RFT.

We’re not approving what it is that’s going to be coming back. We’re not even setting parameters around what we would consider acceptable as a Council. So at this point with this broad delegation of authority, I’m asking my colleagues to say no to this. We can come back with some specifics at a later date.

But right now we would be just giving blind consent here. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Councillor ramen. Thank you and through you and just furthering on some of the points my colleagues have made already with regard to this particular motion and the take no action direction that’s listed here.

Part of my reason for supporting the take no action is as this is tied to previous reports from the mayoral direction around city-owned parking lots. The mayoral direction to me and my reason for previous support was around shovel readiness. And this to me now speaks to another level of involvement through this report. And so where I think we are prioritizing housing as much as we can, I do think one of the concerns I have is this seems like a more exhaustive process.

And so I think from a staff delegation time perspective, from the perspective of the use of our resources most efficiently as well as a Council, I think we have to look at is, you know, and this is my decision making only is that I don’t think it has the intent of being as ready as we had hoped and anticipated. And so for that reason, I’m not ready to support it. Okay, Councillor ramen. Looking for other speakers.

Councillor Ferrera. So I appreciate the comments that I’m hearing. We don’t know all the information. We don’t have all the details and we know there’s risk.

And we don’t know what the level of risk is. It could be substantial. So I appreciate what I’m hearing here. I would be supporting B.

I will not be supporting A. I think we should stop. New information information comes up. Things change.

We had an intent before we were interested. But I just think it’s too risky. And we don’t know the details to move forward. There’s a cart before the horse situation in front of us.

And to be prudent and have good governance. I think we should put the brakes right now. Because we are unable to make a true assessment of the realities facing before us. And this could be a monster of proportions that we don’t even know.

Because we don’t have the information. Thank you, Councillor Ferrera. Any other speakers? Seeing none, we will call B first.

B is the take no action clause. Then we will proceed to vote on A. To open the vote on B first. Opposing the vote.

Motion carries 11 to 4. Now I will ask the clerk to open part A. Opposing the vote. Motion carries 14 to 1.

That concludes item 2.1 from our deferred from the consent agenda earlier. We have no other deferred matters or additional business. So we’re looking for a motion to adjourn. Moved by Councillor McAllister and seconded by Councillor Cuddy.

We can do this by hand. All those in favor? Motion carries. Thank you, colleagues.

We’re adjourned.